Opinion ID: 164418
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: BIA Procedure

Text: Finally, Petitioner argues that the BIA’s use of an affirmance without opinion violated constitutional guarantees of procedural due process. We must reject the argument. We recently held that the streamlined BIA procedure prescribed by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7) does not violate procedural due process. See Yuk, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 781 at . As we explained in Yuk, even under the streamlined process, “petitioners receive[] a meaningful and thorough review of their claims, and, in the IJ’s decision, they receive[] a reasoned explanation for the agency’s decision, -9- which we can, in turn, review. Due process . . . require[s] nothing more.” Id. at –26. Petitioner further argues in support of her due-process claim that affirmance without opinion was improper in her particular case, because “there were new issues raised on appeal that had not been addressed in the court below.” Aplt. Br. at 48. We decline to consider this argument, however, because Petitioner does not identify in her brief what “new issues” were raised on appeal before the BIA. See Eateries Inc. v. J.R. Simplot Co., 346 F.3d 1225, 1232 (10th Cir. 2003) (“We need not sift through the record to find evidence to support a party's argument, nor manufacture a party's argument for it.” (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted)).