Opinion ID: 3023130
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The BIA’s Use of the Streamlining Regulations

Text: Finally, petitioner argues that the BIA failed to follow its own regulations when it issued an AWO. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e) all immigration cases are initially assigned to a single BIA member for disposition. The BIA member is then required to affirm the decision without opinion, if the member determines (1) that result was correct; (2) any errors were either harmless or nonmaterial; and (3) the issues are squarely controlled by precedent and that the issues are not so substantial as to warrant a full written opinion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4). This court has previously affirmed these -12- streamlining procedures and nothing in this case convinces us that the BIA member’s analysis was arbitrary or capricious. See Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 236, 238 (3d Cir. 2003) (finding that the streamlining procedures do not violate the INA or the Due Process Clause). The issues are neither so substantial or outside the controlling precedent so as to warrant a full written opinion. VI. Withholding Removal and Convention Against Torture Petitioner also alleged that she was entitled to relief under the principles of withholding of removal and the CAT. However, the standards for withholding of removal and CAT are significantly more stringent than those for asylum. To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must show that, if deported, there is a “clear probability” that she will be persecuted on account of a specifically protected ground. Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 463, 469 (3d Cir. 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b). To qualify for relief under the CAT, an applicant must show that she is “more likely than not” to be tortured if returned to her home country. Abdulraham, 330 F.3d at 592; 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(c)(2) & (4). Here, petitioner has failed to demonstrate either of these probabilities and therefore relief is denied.