2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
7-7-2004 

# Az a d v . Att y Ge n U S A P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-2301

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Aza d v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 521. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/521NOT PRE CEDENT IAL IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

_______________ No. 03-2301

________________ JAMI L AZAD, Petit ioner
v. JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERA L OF THE UNIT ED STATES OF AMERICA

____________________________________ Petition for Revi ew of An O rder of The Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals

(A73- 072-961)

_______________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

June 29, 2004 Be for e: A M BR O, B EC KE R a nd G RE EN BE RG , Circuit Judges (Fil ed July7, 2004)

_______________________

OPI NION

_______________________ BE CK ER , Circuit

Judge. This is a peti tion by

Jamil Azad for

review of a fi nal order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( “BIA”) orderi ng Azad deported. It i s diffi cult to determi ne from Az ad’ s brie f the exa ct sc ope of h is co nten tion s. H ow eve r, sev eral c halle nge s are clea r. First , Azad contends that s ubstantial e vidence does not support the BIA’s fi nding that

he1 In 1994 Azad was granted t he stat us of permanent

resi dent based on hi s 1993 marri age to M s. Snyde r. Since the m arriage wa s of les s than two years du ration a t that po int, his statu s adjustm ent w as o n a c ond ition al ba sis. See 8 U.S.C. 1186a( g)(1). To remove the conditi on, he was requi red to fi le a j oint pet iti on (with Ms. Sny der) t o establ ish the bona fidesof th e m arria ge, see 8 U.S .C. § 118 6a(c).
2 The re is a stra y stateme nt in A zad’s brief a bou t a puta tive erro r of the BIA wh en it found that

Azad made a “voluntary waiver of counsel, ” but the alle gation i s not further deve loped , and, a t all even ts, we see n o bas is for it. 2 is deportable under section 241(a) (1)(D)( i) of t he INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a )(D)(I )(i ), as again st the po sition o f the IN S tha t (a) as a c ond itional p erma nent re siden t, 1 he fa iled to have the condi tion removed from his st atus prior t o expirat ion of his two-y ear st atus under section 216 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1186a, or (b) he was excludabl e at the time of the a dju stm ent o f his statu s un der sec tion 212 (a)(6 )(C )(I) o f the IN A, 8 U.S .C. § 1182(a)( 6)(C)(i ), due to his havi ng engaged in marriage fr aud. Second, Azad maintains that the adm inistrative record is not su fficien tly comp lete, and that he did n ot hav e a fu ll and fair opp ortu nity to p rese nt h is rele van t evid enc e be for e the Imm igra tion Co urt. Related to the latter contention is his allegation tha t he wa s prejudiced b y evidentiary rulin gs a nd b y the in tem per ate c ond uct o f the Imm igra tion Jud ge ( “IJ” ). 2 The ad ministrative record is hu ge, a produ ct of num erous hea rings. How ever, be ca us e the pa rtie s are fu ll y fa mi li arwit h the ba ck gr oun d fac ts an d proc ed ur al hi st or y we need n ot set them fo rth, and limit our discus sion to our ratio d ecide ndi. With respec t to t

he firs t is sue, we are s atis fied that subst antia l, i f not
ove rw helm ing evid enc e su ppo rts th e co nclu sion that A zad com mitte d m arria ge f rau d.3

Azad sought out s everal women to “help him out ” to obtain lawful permanent r esidence stat us. Credi bili ty determi nations are for t he IJ, who made them adversely to Azad. The testimony off

ered byAzad relative to whyhis marriage t o Ms. Snyder f ell apart does not help his case, f

or the i ssue is not why the marria ge fail ed but whether the marri age was entere d into by

Azad in good fait

h and not for t

he purpose of pr ocuring an i mmigrati on benefit . In s um, subst antia l evide nce support s the I J’s deci sion. With respect to the second argument, the contention about putative incompleteness is frivolous ; the a dminist rati ve record i s veryextensi ve. We have read t he many pages of transcript on the ba sis of wh ich Az ad com plains that the con duct of the hearing by the IJ
was so unf

ai r t o hi m t ha t i t c ons ti tu te s avi ol atio n of due pr oc es s o f l aw. Howe ve r, we find utterly no basis for A zad’s con tention. To be sure, there w ere times w hen the IJ ruled adve rsely to Azad, but som etimes he ru led adverse ly to the governm ent. There were times too when the IJ became exasperated with Azad’s couns el for what he apparen tly perceived to be ov erzealous ad vocacy, typicallyfor pressing p oints that the IJ thought had be en covered or were immateri al. But these oc casions were not exces sive (and the r

ulings of the IJseem justifie d). I ndeed, such reacti ons are common among tri al judges of all tribunals and, at allevents, do not even begin to approach a due process violat ion. Our r eview of the r ecord reve als t hat the IJ was temper ate and fair. Therewas no due process violat

ion. The Petition for Revi ew will be deni ed.