Opinion ID: 3014110
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prejudice by the IJ

Text: Finally, Patel claims the IJ prejudiced her case when he expressed doubts about the merits of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal before the hearing. The IJ specifically stated at the master calendar hearing: We have an asylum application here. I have reviewed it. Before we went on the record, I said that, in my opinion, it has no basis whatsoever. There’s nothing I can do about it. We’re going to have to go ahead and adjudicate it and she can appeal, but the basis for – the reason why I said that is to be helpful to you and your client. She needs to realize that this is not going to result in her obtaining lawful permanent resident status in the United States. And while she still has time, she should look to see if she can qualify for either a labor certification or a relative visa petition. 7 App. 99-100. Patel alleges that the IJ’s statement and alleged predisposition toward denying her applications violated her due process rights and chilled her testimony and presentation of evidence. In order for the IJ to have violated Patel’s due process rights, its actions must have been “fundamentally unfair.” Burkett v. Cunningham, 826 F.2d 1208, 1220-22 (3d Cir. 1987). This was not the case here. As demonstrated by his comments, the IJ intended to give Patel an opportunity to collect stronger evidence in preparation for the hearing while encouraging her to investigate other avenues of relief. Patel presents no substantive evidence of potential bias, intimidation or ways in which the IJ’s statement “chilled” her testimony. Lacking any further evidence, we find the IJ’s advice and warning did not violate Patel’s due process rights. See, e.g., Ciorba v. Ashcroft, 323 F.3d 539, 544 (7th Cir. 2003) (holding that isolated comments by an IJ designed to focus counsel’s attention on the inadequacy of evidentiary submissions did not establish bias on the part of the IJ).