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 5-5-2004 

# B ie n ve nid a v . Att y Ge n U SA 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 . 02-4316

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
" B ie n ve nid a v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 728. 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_2004/728NOT PRE CEDENT IAL

UN ITED STA TES CO UR T O F A PPE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

NO. 02-4316

MIRI AM DIRI LO BI ENVENI DA, Petitioner
v. JOHN AS HCROFT , A TTORNE Y GENERAL OF THE U NITED STATES, Respondent

Petition for Revi ew of an Order of the Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals

(A77-630-940)
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

May 3, 2004 Be for e: S LO VI TE R, F UE NT ES , and BE CK ER , Circu it Judges

(Fil ed: May 5, 2004)

OPINI ON OF THE COURT2

SL OV ITE R, Circu it Judge
. Petitioner Miri am Dirilo Bi envenida i s a nati ve and cit izen of t he Philippines who overst ayed he r visitor’ s visa by 17 year s. She concede d removabil ity and sought cancell ation of

removal and voluntary departur e. She pet iti ons for re view of the deci sion of the Board of I mmigrati on Appeals (“BIA”), which summaril y affirmed the orde r of an Immigrat ion Judge ( “IJ”) denying Bienvenida’ s appli cati on for cancel lati on of removal und er Se ction 2 40 (A )(b)(1) o f the Im migra tion an d N ationa lity Act. Th e sole is sue in Bie nve nid a’s p etitio n is w heth er th e B IA ’s stre am linin g pr oce dur e un der 8 C .F.R
. § 10 03.1 (e)(4 ), on its fa ce, v iolat es B ienv enid a’s d ue p roc ess a nd e qua l pro tectio n rig hts. We have juris dicti on over the pe tition pursuant to 8 U.S. C. § 1252. In Dia v. Ashcroft , 353 F.3d 228 ( 3d Cir. 2003) , we held t hat another section of the BIA ’s stream lining re gulatio ns, 8 C .F.R. § 100 3.1(a)( 7), do es no t run afoul o f the F ifth Am end me nt d ue p roc ess c laus e. Id. at 238-45. We concluded in Dia that the re is “n othi ng ‘ unf

ai r’ ina c ons ti tuti ona l s en se ab out th e . . . st

re aml in in g proc edur es . A n applic ant reta ins a fu ll and fair opp ortun ity to mak e his ca se to the IJ, and has a right to review of that deci sion by the BIA, and t

hen by a c ourt of appe als .
. . . The fact that the
re vi ew is d on e b y on e m em be r o f th e B IA an d t ha t th e d ec isi on is n ot ac co m pa ni ed by a fully reasoned BIA deci sion may be less desir able fr om the peti tioner ’s point of view, but it does not make the pr ocess constitutionally ‘ unfair. ’” Id. at 24 3-4 4. Here, the BIA summarily affirmed t

he IJ’s denialof Bienvenida’ s appli cati on for3

can cella tion of r em ova l un der a differe nt su bse ction of th e stre am linin g pr oce dur e, 8 C.F .R. § 1 003 .1(e)(4 ). The langu age a nd f unctio ning of tha t section , how ever, is substantially similar to that of 8 C.F.R. § 1003. 1(a)( 7) with r espect to the proce dure by which a BIA mem ber sum marily affirms an IJ’s o pinion; it expan ds the use o f the BIA ’s
sum ma ry aff

irma nce pro ced ure rath er th an c han ges the p roc edu re itse lf. Com pare 8 C.F.R. § 1003. 1(a)( 7)(i i) ( “The singl e Board Member . . . may affi rm the deci sion of t he [IJ] , wit hou t op inio n . . . .”) , with 8 C .F.R . § 10 03.1 (e)(4 )(I) (“ Th e B oar d M em ber
. . . shall affirm the decisi on of the [IJ], without opinion . . . .”). Moreov er, the “fair ness” argum ent that Bienv enida raises in he r Fifth Am endm ent due p rocess claim, P etitioner’s Br. at 3-4, 5, 5-6, i s preci sely one of the ar guments we reje cted i n Dia in upholding 8 C.F.R. § 1003( a)(7) . We therefor e find Dia to be the control ling pr ecedent for this case, andre je ctBie nve ni da’ s Fi fth Amen dment due p ro ces s c la im. Bienvenida al so att empts to r aise a Four teenth Amendment equal prote ction chall enge to the BIA’s str eamlini ng procedure. Petitioner’ s Br. at 5. We are not persuaded by

her cla im. To the e xtent t hat Bienveni da’s equalprotection argument is an extensi on of her due proce ss cla im as set forth above , we reje ct her argument becaus e the BIA’s streamlining procedure, on its face, does not violate Bienvenida’s due process right s. To the extent

that Bi envenida se eks to es tabli sh an independe nt equalprotection violatio n fo r the strea mlinin g pro cedu re in qu estion, s he ha s failed to estab lish any ba sis for such a cl aim in her

petition.We wi llth er ef or e d en yBi en ve ni da ’s pe ti ti on f orre vi ew.