Opinion ID: 43482
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Substantial Constitutional Issues

Text: Gonzalez-Quintero raises two due process claims. Due process requires that all aliens be given notice and an opportunity to be heard in their deportation proceedings. Fernandez-Bernal v. Att’y Gen., 257 F.3d 1304, 1310 n.8 (11th Cir. 2001). “In order to establish a due process violation, an alien must show that he or 5 she was deprived of liberty without due process of law, and that the asserted error caused [her] substantial prejudice.” Garcia, 329 F.3d at 1222 (internal citations omitted).
Gonzalez-Quintero argues on appeal that the IJ and BIA violated her due process rights in holding that she abandoned her application for a discretionary 212(c) wavier and in failing to hold a hearing on the issue. “[T]his Court has held that the failure to receive discretionary relief in the immigration context does not deprive an alien of a constitutionally protected liberty interest.” Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286, 1300 (11th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, “an alien has no constitutionallyprotected right to discretionary relief or to be eligible for discretionary relief.” Oguejiofor v. Att’y Gen., 277 F.3d 1305, 1309 (11th Cir. 2002). Because a 212(c) wavier is discretionary relief from deportation, and an alien has no constitutional right to relief, Gonzalez-Quintero’s argument does not constitute a substantial constitutional question. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to address this issue.
Gonzalez-Quintero also argues on appeal that the IJ and BIA violated her due process rights in holding that she abandoned her request for withholding of deportation by filing her asylum application after the ordered deadline. Unlike a 6 212(c) waiver, “withholding of removal [or deportation], where warranted, is a mandatory and not a discretionary remedy.” Antipova v. Att’y Gen., 392 F.3d 1259, 1265 n.2 (11th Cir. 2004). The IJ “may set and extend time limits for the filing of applications and related documents and responses thereto, if any. If an application or document is not filed within the time set by the [IJ], the opportunity to file that application or document shall be deemed waived.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c). We have not addressed whether an IJ violates an alien’s due process rights when the IJ finds that the alien’s failure to file an asylum application by the ordered deadline results in an abandonment or wavier of the alien’s request for withholding of deportation. However, in a similar case, Kuschchak v. Aschroft, 366 F.3d 597, 604-06 (7th Cir. 2004), the Seventh Circuit held that the IJ did not violate the alien’s due process rights in finding that the alien abandoned his withholding of removal application. The IJ advised the alien of the deadline to file any documents, but the alien ignored it; any confusion in relation to the application was due to the alien and his attorney – not to the IJ; and the alien failed to show prejudice, i.e., that the IJ’s actions had the potential for affecting the outcome of the action. Id. Likewise, in the instant case, the IJ informed Gonzalez-Quintero that she must file an asylum application before he could consider the relief of withholding 7 of deportation. The IJ scheduled Gonzalez-Quintero’s next deportation hearing for approximately one year later and notified Gonzalez-Quintero of her asylum application deadline, which was approximately one month before the next hearing. He also asked whether she had any questions, and she replied, through counsel, that she had none. The IJ also sent Gonzalez-Quintero written notice of her next deportation hearing, and reminded her that her application was due. Thus, any confusion in relation to the application deadline was due to Gonzalez-Quintero or her attorney, not the IJ. Moreover, Gonzalez-Quintero has not demonstrated, or even argued, that the determination that she abandoned her application for withholding of deportation prejudiced her. She has not presented any evidence or arguments that the outcome of the hearing would have been different had the IJ considered her untimely application. Accordingly, Gonzalez-Quintero cannot establish a due process claim.