Opinion ID: 2977534
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: IJ Bias4

Text: The Pepajs’ IJ bias claim is meritless. We have acknowledged that “[a] neutral judge is one of the most basic due process protections.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original). However, in this case, the Pepajs have presented little evidence of bias. In their brief, the Pepajs repeatedly make accusations that the IJ was fundamentally unfair and lacked impartiality, but they present no concrete evidence that this was in fact the case. Rather, the Pepajs merely explain “the inherent difficulties arising from cross-cultural misunderstandings in the asylum context,” and point out that the IJ made what the Pepajs believe to be “snide implication[s]” in his oral decision. Pepajs Br. at 29-38. Although the IJ’s occasional sarcastic comments were unnecessary and inappropriate, a few such comments are not enough to show that an IJ was biased to the level of a due-process violation. See Ivezaj v. INS, 84 F.3d 215, 220 (6th Cir. 1996) (noting, in the context of a due-process claim, that petitioners “have no right not to have their feelings hurt by a ‘no nonsense’ IJ”), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Visha v. INS, 51 F. App’x 547, 551 (6th Cir. 2002) (unpublished opinion). This is especially true in light of the fact that the IJ’s oral decision specifically noted a multitude of inconsistencies that led to his finding that the Pepajs were not credible. Ndrecaj, 522 F.3d at 673 (finding no due-process violation where there was “no evidence that [the IJ] did not fairly consider the [petitioners’s] evidence” and “[t]he IJ gave a detailed 4 The Government contends that the Pepajs have waived this claim because it was not presented to the BIA. Gov’t Br. at 38-39. “Although an alien’s due process challenge generally does not require exhaustion (the BIA lacks authority to review constitutional challenges), the alien must raise correctable procedural errors to the BIA.” Sterkaj v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 273, 279 (6th Cir. 2006). However, in the instant case, it is not entirely clear that the Pepajs did not raise this claim before the BIA; in their brief before the BIA, the Pepajs cited Ahmed v. Gonzales, 398 F.3d 722 (6th Cir. 2005), a case addressing procedural due-process issues, and asserted misconduct by the IJ. J.A. at 24 (Pepajs BIA Br. at 4). Because the Pepajs’ claim fails on the merits, we decline to decide the waiver issue. 11 description of all of the inconsistencies that he identified and then explained how those inconsistencies supported his finding that [the petitioner] was not credible”). Thus, we hold that the Pepajs’ due-process rights were not violated by bias of the IJ.