Opinion ID: 794477
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Origin, Development, and Practical Details of the Streamlining Program

Text: 15 The Department of Justice promulgated the streamlining regulations, which are codified at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e), in response to a crushing backlog of immigration appeals. See Executive Office for Immigration Review; Board of Immigration Appeals: Streamlining, 64 Fed.Reg. 56,135, 53,136 (Oct. 18, 1999) (enacting streamlining rules and noting that BIA received fewer than 3,000 new appeals and motions in 1984 and received in excess of 28,000 new appeals and motions in 1998); Board of Immigration Appeals: Procedural Reforms To Improve Case Management, 67 Fed.Reg. 54,878, 54,878 (Aug. 26, 2002) (amending streamlining rules and noting that the pending case-load on September 30, 2001[ ] totaled 57,597 cases); see also id. at 54,879 (raising concern that many appeals have been filed precisely to take advantage of [the] delay under the prior policy of referring all cases to three-member panels, because cases have routinely remained pending . . . for more than two years, and some cases have taken more than five years to resolve). The backlog has since been reduced by about half. See note 18, post. 16 The BIA's streamlining regulations for adjudicating those appeals of IJ orders not dismissed for procedural default or similar reasons ( i.e., those appeals receiving merits review by the BIA) are set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(3)-(6). Under the regulations, 17 The Board member to whom a case is assigned 5 shall affirm the decision of the Service or the immigration judge, without opinion, if the Board member determines that the result reached in the decision under review was correct; that any errors in the decision under review were harmless or nonmaterial; and that 18 (A) The 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 19 (B) The factual and legal issues raised on appeal are not so substantial that the case warrants the issuance of a written opinion in the case. 20 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4). 21 Conversely, the regulations provide that a case 22 may only be assigned [by the single member originally assigned to dispose of the appeal] for review by a three-member panel if the case presents one of these circumstances: 23 (i) The need to settle inconsistencies among the rulings of different immigration judges; 24 (ii) The need to establish a precedent construing the meaning of laws, regulations, or procedures; 25 (iii) The need to review a decision by an immigration judge or the Service that is not in conformity with the law or with applicable precedents; 26 (iv) The need to resolve a case or controversy of major national import; 27 (v) The need to review a clearly erroneous factual determination by an immigration judge; or 28 (vi) The need to reverse the decision of an immigration judge or the Service, other than a reversal under § 1003.1(e)(5). 6 29 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(6) (emphasis added). 7 30 The streamlining program has uniformly withstood challenges based on the Due Process Clause, see Yu Sheng Zhang v. DOJ, 362 F.3d 155, 156-59 (2d Cir.2004) (collecting cases from sister circuits upholding program and concluding that the regulations provide due process because even after streamlining, an applicant for asylum or withholding of removal remains entitled to a full hearing on his asylum claims, a reasoned opinion from the IJ, the opportunity for BIA review, and the right to seek relief from the courts); see also, e.g., Hang Kannha Yuk v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1222, 1229-32 (10th Cir.2004); Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849-52 (9th Cir.2003). Our sister circuits have split, however, on the question of whether Courts of Appeals are vested with jurisdiction to review the Board's decision to have a particular case decided by a single member rather than by a three-member BIA panel. 8 Compare Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 983 (8th Cir.2004) (decision to streamline a particular case is committed to agency discretion and not subject to judicial review), and Tsegay v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1347, 1353-58 (10th Cir.2004) (concluding that appellate review is precluded because BIA summary affirmances provide no rationale, the regulations were not intended to grant aliens substantive rights, and review would be impractical and would defeat the streamlining purpose), 9 with Smriko v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 279, 290-95 (3d Cir.2004) (remanding case to BIA for three-member panel review), and Haoud v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 201, 206-08 (1st Cir.2003) (holding that, in a case in which a one-member decision without opinion left unclear whether affirmance was based on an application's untimeliness—a discretionary ground for denial that cannot be reviewed—or on the merits—which may be reviewed—Court of Appeals cannot know if it possesses jurisdiction and therefore must remand to BIA for explanation of ratio decidendi ), and Chong Shin Chen v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 1081, 1086-88 (9th Cir.2004) (remanding a one-member decision without opinion to the BIA for determination of a novel legal issue by a three-member panel of the BIA). 31