Opinion ID: 166160
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Administrative Appeal Process

Text: 26 The Attorney General is charged with the administration and enforcement of ... laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens. INA § 103, 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(1). He shall establish such regulations... and perform such other acts as he deems necessary for carrying out his authority, § 1103(a)(3). Most of the Attorney General's powers in removal proceedings are exercised in the first instance by immigration judges. See INA § 101(b)(4), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(4) (defining immigration judge ); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(1) (An immigration judge shall conduct proceedings for deciding the inadmissibility or deportability of an alien.). The statute does not provide for an administrative appeal. But by regulation the Attorney General has provided for administrative review of these IJ decisions in the BIA. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(b)(3) (granting BIA jurisdiction over appeals from IJ decisions in removal proceedings); 1003.38(a); 1240.15. 27 The BIA is wholly a creature of regulation. It is not mentioned in the United States Code. It is simply an instrument through which the Attorney General exercises the powers conferred on him by the INA. Its organization and authority are set out in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1. It is ordinarily composed of 11 members who are attorneys appointed by the Attorney General. Id. § 1003.1(a)(1)-(2). The BIA issues decisions by individual members, three-member panels, or as a whole, en banc. Id. § 1003.1(a)(3) & (5) 28 When an appeal is taken to the BIA, it may be summarily dismissed by a member or a panel. Id. § 1003.1(d)(2) (listing specific grounds). An appeal that is not summarily dismissed can be disposed of in three ways: (1) a member may affirm without opinion, id. § 1003.1(e)(4); (2) a member may issue a brief order affirming, modifying, or remanding, id. § 1003.1(e)(5); or (3) a member may designate a case for review by a panel, but only for six specified, but broad, reasons, id. § 1003.1(e)(6). 29 The BIA is to affirm without opinion when (1) the result reached in the decision under review was correct; (2) any errors in the decision under review were harmless or nonmaterial; and (3) [t]he issues on appeal are squarely controlled by existing Board or federal court precedent and do not involve the application of precedent to a novel factual situation, or [t]he factual and legal issues raised on appeal are not so substantial that the case warrants the issuance of a written opinion. Id. § 1003.1(e)(4)(i). 30 When the BIA affirms without opinion, the decision below is the final agency determination, id. § 1003.1(e)(4)(ii)—in this case, the final order of removal. 31 An order affirming without opinion, issued under authority of [8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)(ii)], shall not include further explanation or reasoning. Such an order approves the result reached in the decision below; it does not necessarily imply approval of all of the reasoning of that decision, but does signify the Board's conclusion that any errors in the decision of the immigration judge or the Service were harmless or nonmaterial. 32 Id. This provision plainly bars a BIA member who issues an affirmance without opinion from explaining the reasons for the affirmance, even though they are different from those stated by the IJ. Nowhere does the regulation provide for further clarification on remand from us; indeed, to order the BIA to explain itself, even to the extent of stating whether it affirmed on a reviewable, nondiscretionary or nonreviewable, discretionary ground, would contradict 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)(ii). See Tsegay v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1347, 1357 (10th Cir.2004).