2010 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 1-14-2010 

# S h ah Na dir v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4120

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " S h ah Na d ir v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2057. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/2057NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 08- 4120 S HAH AFR I DI NAD I R,

Pet i t i oner v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a D eci s i on of the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 016- 059- 346) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e R obertD . W ei s el

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary12, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , ST A PL E T O N A N D N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary14, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Shah A fr i di N adi rpet i t i ons forr evi ew of a de ci s i on r ender ed bythe B oar d of I mm i g r a t i o n Ap p e a l s ( “ BI A” ) o n S e p t e mb e r1 1 , 2 0 0 8 . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we wi l l d i s mi s s i n p a r ta n d d e n yi n p a r tth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.2 I . B ackgr ound B ecause w e w ri t e sol el yfor the b enef i tof the part i es, w e w i l l setforth o nlytho se fac t s nece s s aryt o ouranal y s i s . N adi ri s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of Paki s t an. H e ca m e t o t he U ni t ed St at es i n O ct ober1998 and over s t ay ed hi s vi s a. I n J une 2005, N adi rappl i ed for w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l a n d p ro te c tio n u n d e r t h e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re (“ C A T ” ). H e cl ai m ed that , begi nni ng i n 1997, he s uffe r ed per s ecut i on and t or tur e i n Paki s t an on ac co u n t of

h is po li ti ca l op inion d u e to h is l o n g ti m e m em b ersh ip in the P ak ist an P eo p le’s Par ty( “PPP”) . A m ong ot herthi ngs , N adi rcl ai m s thathe w as arr es t ed i n M ar ch 1997 and detai ned for on e m on th, du ri ng w hich t i m e he w as beat en, t ortured w i th electri c shock s, a n d d e n ie d f

o o d . A fter a h ea ri n g in N o v em b er 2 0 0 6 , the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e (“ IJ”) d en ied N ad ir ’s appl i cat i on. N adi rappea l ed. O n Sept ember11, 2008, the B I A aff i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on and di s m i s s ed the appe al . T hi s t i m el ycouns el ed pet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed. II. A n a ly sis W e gene r al l yr evi ew onl yfi nal deci s i ons bythe B I A . See Li v. A t t ’ yG en. , 400 F . 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); A b d u lai v . A sh cro ft, 2 3 9 F . 3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 8 -49 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). H ow ever, becau se the B IA defe rr ed to several aspect s of t he IJ’ s fi nd i ng s and an al y si s, w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew both deci s i ons . See X i e v. A s hcr oft , 359 F. 3d 239, 242 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W e r evi ew l egal concl us i ons de novo, s ee Ezea gw una v. A s hcr oft , 325 F. 3d 396, 405 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , and uphol d fac tual det erm i nat i ons i f theyar e s uppor t ed “byN adi rpr ovi ded no document aryevi dence t o corr obor at e hi s cl ai m thathe w as 1 im p ri s o n e d a n d to rt u re d f o r o n e m o n th in P a k is ta n .

3 r eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al and pr obat i ve evi dence on the r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” G uo v. A s hcr oft , 386 F. 3d 556, 561 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . U l t i m at el y , thi s C our t“mustfi nd thatt he evi dence notonl ys uppor t s thatconcl us i on [thatthe appl i cat i on s houl d have be en g ran ted], bu t com p els i t. ” IN S v . E li as-Z ac arias, 50 2 U . S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 n . 1 (19 9 2 ). A. T o qual i fyforw i thhol di ng of r emoval , N adi rw as r equi r ed t o demonstr at e thathe “more l i kel ythan not ” w i l l fac e per s ecut i on i f deport ed t o Paki s t an. See I N S v. C ar dozaFonse ca, 480 U . S. 421, 430 ( 1987) . N adi ratt empt ed t o es t abl i s h hi s el i gi bi l i tythr ough t e s t i monytha the s uf

fe r e d p a s tpe r s e c ut i on i n Pa ki s t a n o n a c c ou ntof hi s PPP m ember s hi p. See 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16( b) ( “The t es t i m onyof the appl i cant , i f cr edi bl e, m ay

1 be s uffi ci entt o s us t ai n t he bur den of pr oof w i thoutcorr obor at i on. ”) . A s ucce s s ful s how i ng of pas tper s ecut i on w oul d have e nt i t l ed N adi rt o a r ebutt abl e pr es um pt i on thathe w o u ld a ls o f

a c e f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n if

re m o v e d . S e e 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 (b )( 1 )( i) . T he I J found N adi r ’ s t es t i m onyt o be notcr edi bl e and de ni ed N adi r ’ s appl i cat i on f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l f

o r th a t re a so n . T h e B IA a f f irm e d th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty determ i nati on . N adirargues that the IJ and B IA err ed b ecause h e est abli shed p ast p e rs e c u tio n th ro u g h c re d ib le e v id e n c e . N adirfaces a hea vybu rden. W e hav e recogn i zed thatan IJ i s norm al l yi n the bestPr i ort o M ay2005, an adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on coul d onl ybe bas ed upon 2 inco n sist en cies tha t w en t t o the “ h ea rt ” o f th e ind ividu al’s claim . S ee C h u k w u v . A tt ’y G en . , 4 8 4 F . 3 d 1 8 5 , 1 8 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). T h e R E A L ID A ct, w h ich a p p li es to N ad ir ’s cas e, m odi fi es thats t andar d bypr ovi di ng that“cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons m aybe made ‘ w i thoutr egar d t o w hetheran i ncons i s t ency , i nacc ur acy , orfal s ehood goes t o the hea r tof th e a p p lica n t’s c laim .’” I N A § 2 0 8 (b )(1 )(B )(iii) [ 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (b )(1 )(B )(iii)]. T h is C o u rt h a s n o t y e t u p h e ld th e n e w p ro v isio n . H e re , h o w e v e r, th e c h a n g e in th e sta n d a rd is irre lev a n t to th e o u tco m e , b e c a u se th e IJ a n d B IA b o th c o n c lu d e d th a t th e c re d ib ili ty pr obl ems w er e s uffi ci ent l ycons equent i al t o m eetthe pr e- R E A L I D A cts t andar d. N ei ther partyhas di s put ed thatas pectof the cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. 4 pos i t i on t o m ake a cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on and i s “uni quel yqual i fi ed t o deci de w hether an al i en’ s t es t i m onyhas abouti tthe r i ng of truth. ” A bdul r ahman v. A s hcr oft , 330 F. 3d 5 8 7 , 5 9 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (qu o ti n g S arv ia-Q u intan il la v. IN S , 7 6 7 F . 2 d 1 3 8 7 , 1 3 9 5 (9th C ir . 1985) ) . W e r evi ew adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons fors ubs t ant i al evi dence . C hen v. A sh c ro f t, 37 6 F .3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 1 -2 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). W e w ill a f f irm th e a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty fin d ing if i t i s su p p o rt ed b y“re aso n ab le, su b stan ti al, an d p rob ati v e e v iden ce o n the re co rd cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” G ao v. A s hcr oft , 299 F. 3d 266, 272 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . T o r ever s e, the evi dence of N adi r ’ s cr edi bi l i tym us tbe s o s tr ong “thati n a ci vi l tr i al he w oul d be e n title d to ju d g m e n t o n th e c re d ib ility is s u e a s a m a tte r o f la w .” C h e n , 3 7 6 F .3 d a t 2 2 2 . W e h a v e c lo se lyre v iew e d th e re c o rd a n d c o n c lu d e th a t th e a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on r es t s upon s ubs t ant i al evi dence . B oth the B I A and I J pr ovi ded numer ous s peci fi c and c ogentr eas ons forconcl udi ng thatN adi rl acke d cr edi bi l i ty , al l of w hi ch go to th e “ h e a rt ” o f

h is c la im s . S e e B e ri s h a j v . A s h c ro f

t, 3 7 8 F .3 d 3 1 4 , 3 2 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 2 Speci fi cal l y , the I J and B I A i dent i fi ed the fol l ow i ng i ncons i s t enci es and i m pl aus i bi l i t i esA partfr om hi s ow n t es t i m onyand s t at ement , the R ahman l ett eri s the onl yevi dence 3 th a t N a d irs u b m itte d to c o rr o b o ra te h is in d iv id u a liz e d p e rs e c u tio n c la im . P e rh a p s in a n e f

f o rt to sh o w w h yh is p ro p o se d e x p lan a tio n s la c k re c o rd su p p o rt, 4 N adi rar gues thathe w as notperm i t t ed t o addr es s the cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ngs beca us e “the D H S at t orneycont i nued t o badgerhi m and the J udge al s o j oi ned i n byt el l i ng Pet i t i oner thathe w oul d pr et erm i thi s appl i cat i ons forr el i ef i f he di d nots t op i nt errupt i ng. ” Pet i t i oner ’ s B r i ef a t15. T he r ecor d does nots uppor tN adi r ’ s cl ai m thathe w as pr ohi bi t ed f ro m p re se n tin g tes tim o n y . T o th e c o n tra ry , the re c o rd re f lec ts th a t N a d ir h im se lf re p e a ted lyin ter f

e re d w ith th e p ro c e e d in g s. N a d ir in ter ru p ted b yp ro v id in g a n sw e rs to couns el ’ s ques t i ons befor e the i nt erpr et ercoul d compl et e hi s tr ans l at i on. See A . R . 163- 5 w i thi n N adi r ’ s t es t i m onyand/ orbetw een N adi r ’ s t es t i m onyand document aryevi dence : ( 1) N adi rcl ai m ed t o be “I nform at i on Secr et ary ” forhi s vi l l age’ s br anch of the PPP, butN adi rs ubm i t t ed a l ett erfr om Sal eem R ahman, the p re sid e n t o f

th e P P P f

o r N a d ir’s d istric t, w h ich in d ica ted th a t N a d ir w as onl ya “s i m pl e mem ber ” of the PPP. See A . R . 384. 3 (2 ) T h e R a h m a n lette r sta tes th a t th e m ili tar yre g im e “ w a s a f ter h im to arr es thi m , ” butdoes nots ugges tthatN adi rw as pr evi ous l yarr es t ed, al though i tw oul d be r eas onabl e t o pr es um e thatR ahman w oul d have m e n tio n e d a p ri o r a rr e s t. A .R . 9 2 (I J d e c is io n a t 6 ); A .R . 3 8 4 . (3) T h e R ah m an let ter i n d icates tha t th e m il it aryreg im e ra ided N ad ir ’s h o m e s e v e ra l tim e s f

o r t h e p u rp o s e o f

f in d in g a n d a rr e s tin g h im . A . R . 384. N adi rdi d notm ent i on anyr ai ds i n hi s t es t i m onyor w ri tte n s ta te m e n t. (4 ) N a d ir tes tifie d in c o n sis ten tlya b o u t th e se q u e n c e o f e v e n ts a f

ter h is i mp r i s o n me n t . S p e c i f

i c a l l y , h e f

i r s tt e s t i f i e d th a th e r e tu rn e d h o me aft erhi s r el eas e t o r ecove rfr om hi s i nj ur i es . H e l at ert es t i fi ed that he w entt o K ar achi t o hi de, then boar ded a s hi p, and onl yl at er r eturned home. In re sp o n se , N a d ir p ro v id e s a se rie s o f c o n c lu so rya n d u n su p p o rte d a rg u m e n ts p ro p o sin g th a t ea c h c re d ib ili tyf in d in g h a s a n a ltern a tiv e e x p lan a tio n th a t su p p o rts N adi r ’ s cl ai m r atherthan underm i nes i t . H ow ever , the Supr eme C our thas i ns truct ed that 46 6 . T h e IJ re p e a te d ly as k e d N a d irto a llo w th e in te rp re te r t o f in is h b e f o re a n s w e ri n g . B eca us e N adi rcont i nued t o i nt errupt , the I J eventual l yadmoni s hed, “i f y ou do thi s one m or e t i m e, I w i l l cons i derpr et erm i t t i ng thi s appl i cat i on and deport i ng y ou . . . B eca us e I w i l l cons i derthi s an i nt ent i onal i nt er fer ence w i th the C our t ’ s abi l i tyt o conducta hea r i ng on y ourbehal f. ” A . R . 166; s ee a l s o A . R . 172 ( “Y ourr epea t ed i nt errupt i ons of the interpre ter are p rev en ti n g the C o u rtfro m g ett ing a f u ll tr an slat ion o f w h at y o u ’re sa y in g .”). T h e IJ’ s re a so n a b le e f f o rts to m a in tain c o u rtro o m c o n tro l b ya sk in g N a d ir to ref rain f rom p ersist en t i n terrup ti o n s d o es n o t un d erm ine th e e v iden ti aryrec o rd o r th e IJ’s c o n c lu sio n s b a se d u p o n it. N adircon t end s that hi s suppo rt i ng evidence “als o sup po rt [s] a fi nd i ng that there i s a 5 patt ern orpr act i ce of

per s ecut i on agai ns tPPP m ember s i n Paki s t an, w hi ch further s u p p o rt s h is a p p lic a tio n f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. . . .” P e titio n e r’ s B ri e f a t 1 8 . Ho we v e r , Na d i rn e v e rp r e s e n t e d a “ p a t t e rn o rp r a c t i c e ” c l a i m t o th e I J o rBI A. S e e A. R. 92 (I J D eci si on at6) ( “R espon den thas no tpresent ed an yal t ernat i ve g round s t o est abli sh i ti s m or e l i kel ythan nothe w i l l be s ubj ectt o per s ecut i on i n Paki s t an. ”) . B eca us e he ha s r ai s ed i tforthe fi r s tt i m e i n t hi s C our t , the cl ai m i s unexhaus t ed and w e w i l l di s m i s s i tfor l ack of j ur i s di ct i on. See I N A § 242( d) ( 1) [8 U . S. C . § 1252( d) ( 1) ] ; A bdul r ahman, 330 F .3 d a t 5 9 4 -9 5 . 6 “[w ] her e ther e ar e tw o perm i s s i bl e vi ew s of the evi dence , the fa ct fi nder ’ s choi ce be tw een them cannotbe cl ear l yerr oneous . ” A nder s on v. C i tyof B es s emerC i ty , N or th C ar ol i na, 470 U . S. 564, 574 ( 1985) . N adi rhas notdemonstr at ed thatanyof the I J ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ct w er e cl ear l yerr oneous . H i s cont ent i on thatther e coul d be otherpl aus i bl e i nt erpr et at i ons of the evi dence does notunderm i ne the adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on.

“ A n a lien ’s c re d ib ili ty , b yitse lf , m a ysa tisf

yh is b u rd e n , o r d o o m h is c laim .” D ia v. A shcroft , 35 3 F . 3d 22 8, 24 7 (3d C i r. 20 03 ) ( en b anc). In this case, the ad verse cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on doom s N adi r ’ s cl ai m . N adi rfai l ed t o m eetthe bur den of s uppor t i ng hi s appl i cat i on forw i thhol di ng of r emoval thr ough cr edi bl e t es t i m ony . See 5 M u lang a v . A sh cro ft, 3 4 9 F . 3 d 1 2 3 , 1 3 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).A s partof thi s anal y s i s , the I J pr oper l ycons i der ed w hetherN adi rpr es ent ed evi dence 6 of pas tt or tur e. Such evi dence i s r el evantt o the det erm i nat i on of w hetheran i ndi vi dual w il l “m o re li k elythan n o t” be tortu red if rem o v ed . S ee 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 6 (c)(3)(i) ; Z u b e d a , 3 3 3 F .3 d a t 4 7 8 . F o r e ss e n tiallyth e sa m e re a so n s th a t h e d id n o t p re se n t cr e d ib le e v id e n c e o f

p a st p e rse c u tio n , the IJ c o n c lu d e d th a t N a d ir d id n o t p re se n t cr e d ib le evi dence of pas tt or tur e. T hi s as s es s m ental s o r es t s upon s ubs t ant i al evi dence . 7 B. “A n appl i cantforr el i ef on the mer i t s under[the C A T ] bear s the bur den of e sta b lish in g ‘th a t itis m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t h e o r sh e w o u ld b e to rtu re d if re m o v e d to the p rop o sed co u n tryo f re m o v al. ’” S ev o ian v . A sh cro ft, 2 9 0 F . 3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 4 -17 5 (3d C ir . 2002) . T o m eetthi s bur den, the appl i cantm us tpr es entobj ect i ve evi dence , Z ubeda v. A s hcr oft , 333 F. 3d 463, 471 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , i ncl udi ng evi dence of pas tt or tur e i nfl i ct ed upon the appl i cantand r el evanti nform at i on r egar di ng condi t i ons i n the countryof r e mo v a l . S e e Au g u s t e v . Ri d g e , 3 9 5 F . 3 d 1 2 3 , 1 3 4 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) . A d e n i a l o f CA T r el i ef, l i ke w i thhol di ng of r emoval , i s s ubj ectt o r evi ew underthe def er ent i al s ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e s ta n d a rd . Z u b e d a , 3 3 3 F .3 d a t 4 7 1 . R e ly in g u p o n o u r d e c isio n in Z u b e d a , N a d ir a rg u e s th a t th e IJ a n d B IA im p ro p e rly d e n ie d h is C A T c la im b ye x c lu s iv e ly re lyin g u p o n th e a d v e rs e c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n . Pet i t i oner ’ s B r i ef a t16; Z ubeda, 333 F. 3d at476 ( “[C]r edi bi l i tyforpurpos es of es t abl i s hi ng . . . w i thhol di ng of deport at i on cl ai m s does notdefe at[the] abi l i tyt o ‘ m eet [th e] b u rde n o f p roo f’ u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re.”). W e d isag ree . T h e IJ p r o p e r l yc o n s i d e r e d “ a l l e v i d e n c e r e l e v a n tt o th e p o s s i b i l i tyo f f u tu r e t o r tu r e . ” 8 C. F . R. 68

§ 2 0 8 .1 6 (c )( 3 ). T h e IJ e x p re ss lyd isc u ss e d N a d ir’s d o c u m e n tar ye v id e n c e o f c o u n tryc o n d iti o n s in Paki s t an, i ncl udi ng the mostr ece ntSt at e D epart m entR eport . See A . R . 94 ( I J D eci s i on at 8) . A mong o the rthi ng s , the I J fo un d tha tthe r e po r tdi d n oti nd i c a t e tha tN a di r ’ s PPP m ember s hi p w oul d aut om at i cal l yr enderhi m s ubj ectt o i m pr i s onm enti n Paki s t an, and th a t, alth o u g h h ig h -ra n k in g m e m b e rs o f th e P P P m ig h t f

a c e su c h risk s, N a d ir f

a iled to estab li sh that h e is m o re tha n a “ sim p le m em b er” o f th e P P P . S ee id. I n ad d it ion , the IJ f o u n d th a t, ev e n if

N a d ir c o u ld e sta b lish a n in c re a se d risk o f a rre st in P a k ista n d u e to h is PPP m ember s hi p, thatw oul d notbe s uffi ci entt o compel a conc l us i on thathe w oul d fac e t or tur e i n Paki s t an. I d. T hus , bas ed upon the r ecor d as a w hol e, the I J concl uded thatN adi r ’ s pr offe r ed e v id e n c e “ d o e s n o t es tab lish it i s m o re lik e lyth a n n o t h e w o u ld b e to rtu re d if re m o v e d to P a k i s t a n . ” I d . T h e B I A a f f i r m e d th e I J ’ s a p p r o a c h . S e e A . R . 3 ( B I A D e c i s i o n a t2 ) . We c o n c lu d e th a t th e d e c is io n to d e n yC A T re lie f re s ts u p o n s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . C. N adi rar gues thatthe I J vi ol at ed hi s D ue Pr oces s r i ght s beca us e N adi ri ndi cat ed d u r i n g th e Go v e r n me n t ’ s c r o s s - e x a mi n a t i o n th a th e wa s s u f f e r i n g f r o m c h e s tp a i n s . He cont ends that“thi s cl ear l ycutPet i t i oner ’ s t es t i m onys hor t ” and thatthe I J s houl d have cont i nued the pr ocee di ngs r atherthan conc l udi ng them and r ender i ng a dec i s i on. T he G o v e rn m e n t re sp o n d s th a t N a d ir’s c laim lac k s f a c tu a l su p p o rt b e c a u se , alth o u g h N a d irT he I J i nform ed the part i es thathe w as vi s i t i ng fr om anotherci tyand w oul d be 7 u n ab le t o ap p ea r at th e c o n ti n u ed h ea ri n g ; acc o rdin g ly , if co n ti n u ed , n o n e o f N ad ir ’s te s tim o n yf

ro m th a t d a yw o u ld b e c o n s id e re d a n d a d e n o v o h e a ri n g w o u ld b e o rd e re d . A . R . 183. G e n e ra lly , co n stitu tio n a l cla im s a re b e y o n d th e B IA ’s ju risd ictio n a n d n o t su b jec t to 8 the e x h au sti o n req u ir em en t. B o n h o m etre v . G o n za les, 4 1 4 F . 3 d 4 4 2 , 4 4 8 n . 7 (3d C ir . 2005) . H ow ever , ther e i s an exc ept i on forcl ai m s thatcoul d have be en corr ect ed byt he B I A . K han v. A t t ’ yG en. , 448 F. 3d 226, 236 n. 8 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( I J ’ s al l egedl yerr oneous d e n ia l o f a c o n tin u a n c e is a p ro c e d u ra l e rr o r t h a t c a n b e a d d re s s e d b yth e B IA o n a p p e a l) . N a d ir ’s c la im f

a lls w ith in th is e x c e p tio n . 9 init ial lyac ce p ted th e IJ’s o ff er to c o n ti n u e the h ea ri n g , see A . R . 1 7 6 -80 , w h en the IJ i nform ed the part i es thata cont i nuance w oul d r equi r e a de novo hear i ng, both part i es 7 agr eed t o concl ude ques t i oni ng and pr ocee d on the r ecor d as i ts t ood. See A . R . 184- 85. W e g e n e ra llylac k ju risd ictio n to re v iew c laim s th a t w e re n o t ad m in istra tiv e ly exhaus t ed. See I N A § 242( d) ( 1) [8 U . S. C . § 1252( d) ( 1) ] . N adi rneverar gued t o the I J or to th e B IA th a t h e s h o u ld h a v e b e e n g ra n te d a c o n tin u a n c e d u e to h is h e a lth p ro b le m s . F o r i n s ta n c e , in th e h e a ri n g b e f o re th e IJ , N a d ir ’s c o u n s e l d id n o t r e q u e s t a c o n tin u a n c e . Inst ead, counsel express l yi nd i cat ed to the IJ that he had no further que st i on s t o ask N adir . A . R . 18 5 (“JU D G E T O M R . F E L IX O N : [D ]oes r espon den t ’s cou nsel w ant t o ask an yq u esti o n s o n red ir ec t? M R . F E L IX O N T O JU D G E : N o . I w il l no t ask an ym o re ques t i ons . ”) . T hus , notonl ydoes the r ecor d s er i ous l yunderm i ne the fa ctual underpi nni ngs of N adi r ’ s D ue Pr oces s cl ai m , i tal s o demonstr at es thatN adi rdi d not pr evi ous l yr ai s e the i s s ue. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l di s m i s s thi s cl ai m forl ack of 8 ju ri s d ic tio n . S e e A b d u lr a h m a n , 3 3 0 F .3 d a t 5 9 4 -9 5 .E v e n if h e h a d a ttem p ted to d o so , N a d ir w o u ld n o t b e a b le to sta te a c o lo ra b le 9 c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i m b a s e d u p o n th e I J ’ s a l l e g e d e rr o r . F o ri n s t a n c e , i n Ca r c a mo v . US D ep’ tof J us t i ce, 498 F. 3d 94, 98 ( 2d C i r . 2007) , the C our tof A ppeal s forthe Second C i r cui tcons i der ed a c l ai m thata deni al of vol unt arydepartur e ca us ed a de pr i vat i on of D ue Pr oces s beca us e i tw as bas ed upon an a l l egedl yerr oneous fi ndi ng of fa ct . See i d. at 98. T he C ar camo cour tconcl uded that“abs entcl earpr oof thatthe fa ctual bas i s foran I J ’ s deci s i on w as unambi guous l ycontr adi ct ed bythe r ecor d, a pet i t i onerr ai s es no ‘c o n stitu tio n a l cla im [ ] o r q u e stio n [ ] o f law ’ f o r u s to re v iew .” Id . (W e n o te th a t, i n N adi r ’ s cas e, the I J ’ s fi ndi ng thatN adi rdi d notpr es enta val i d pas s por ti s not un am biguou sl ycon tradi ct ed b ythe record. ) Si m i l arl y , the C ou rtof A pp eal s for the F i rs t C i r cui thas hel d t hata pet i t i onercannotci r cumventthe j ur i s di ct i onal barbycl ai m i ng t hat D ue Pr oces s r equi r ed a he ar i ng aboutthe G overnm ent ’ s al l egedl yunfai rs ei zur e of the pet i t i oner ’ s pas s por t , beca us e ther e i s no D ue Pr oces s r i ghtt o vol unt arydepartur e. See K andamarv. G onzal es , 464 F. 3d 65, 69 ( 1s tC i r . 2006) ( “[T] he I J s ucci nct l yexpl ai ned th a t th e la c k o f

a p a s s p o rt o r a n yo th e r t ra v e l d o c u m e n t p re c lu d e d v o lu n ta ry d e p a rt u re . N o g rea ter he aring o r rati o n ale w as n ec essa ryo n the p o int. ”). 10 D. F inally , the IJ c o n clud ed that N ad irw as statuto ri lyineligible f o r vo lun tary d e p a rtu re b e c a u se N a d ir “ h a s f a iled to p re se n t th e C o u rt w ith a v a lid p a ss p o rt.” N a d ir cl ai m s , w i thoutr ecor d s uppor t , thatthe G overnm enthad hi s pas s por ti n i t s cus t odybut fai l ed t o br i ng i tt o t he hea r i ng. I n r es pons e, the G overnm entar gues thatw e l ack juri sd ict ion to co n side r th is cl aim . U n d er IN A § 2 4 0 B (f) [8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 c(f )], “[ n ]o courts hal l have j ur i s di ct i on overan appe al fr om deni al of a r eques tforan or derof vol unt arydepartur e . . . . ” Pur s uantt o I N A § 242( a) ( 2) ( D ) [8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) ] , j udi ci al r evi ew i s not p re c lu d e d w h e re a p e tit io n e r ra ise s a c o n stitu tio n a l cla im o r q u e stio n o f law . H e re , N a d ir has fai l ed t o pr es enta cons t i tut i onal cl ai m orques t i on of l aw . See, e. g. , K ar i m v. 9G o n za les, 4 2 4 F . 3 d 1 0 9 , 1 1 1 -12 (1st C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (no juri sd ict ion o v er c lai m that IJ

err oneous l yconcl uded thatpet i t i onerl acke d a val i d tr avel document ) . W e ther efor e l ack ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h is c la im a n d w ill d is m is s it. I N A § 2 4 0 B (f ) [ 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 c (f

)] . I I I . C oncl us i on Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l di s m i s s the pet i t i on forr evi ew t o the ext entt hat w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on overcert ai n cl ai m s . W e w i l l denythe pet i t i on forr evi ew i n al l ot her res pects .