Opinion ID: 66425
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: IJ's Alleged Bias

Text: The final ground for relief urged by Wang is couched as a denial of due process based upon the alleged bias of the IJ. It is questionable whether this ground was properly raised before the BIA. Assuming without deciding that the question is properly before us, we overrule this ground as well. Wang contends that the IJ was biased against her and impermissibly injected herself in the proceedings turning into a prosecutor rather than a neutral arbiter. We agree with Wang that a due process violation can be premised upon the absence of a neutral arbiter. We disagree that she has shown such a situation here. Wang relies upon the Supreme Court's decision in Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994), a criminal case. In that case, the Court made clear that a finding of bias supporting recusal based upon conduct by the judge in a hearing or trial is very rare: [J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion .... [O]pinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the ... proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. Id. at 555. 114 S.Ct. 1147 The Court explained further: [J]udicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge. Id. Of importance to the Court was the source and degree of such hostility: [Remarks may support a bias motion] if they reveal an opinion that derives from an extrajudical source; and they will do so if they reveal such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible. The Court made quite clear the displays of temper will not suffice:  Not establishing bias or partiality ... are expressions of impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance, and even anger, that are within the bounds of what imperfect men and women ... sometimes display. Id. at 555-56, 114 S.Ct. 1147. Judged against Liteky 's measuring stick, the IJ's conduct falls far short of the type of conduct necessary to sustain a bias motion. The record reveals a judge who was trying to get to the bottom of Wang's story. While the IJ may have interrupted more frequently than Wang liked, she did not prevent Wang from presenting her evidence. Wang is critical of the IJ's questioning, but she fails to point to any specific area that was improper and cited only one instance of her attorney objecting to the questioning. Compare Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (reversing IJ adverse decision because IJ prevented the applicant from presenting his evidence), with Shoaira v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 837, 843 (8th Cir.2004) (it is telling that the petitioners point to no evidence that the IJ's conduct discouraged or prohibited them from providing.) and Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir.2006) (Although the IJ showed impatience at times, Almaghzar had ample opportunity to present his case, and the record as a whole does not suggest that the IJ did not conduct the hearing with an open mind.). It is commonplace in bench trials for judges to ask questions, and we will not transmute such a commonplace occurrence into a due process violation without considerably more than Wang has demonstrated here. See, e.g., Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 927 (9th Cir.2007) (This is not a case where the IJ prevented a full examination of the applicant, ... stood in moral judgment of the alien, ... or pressured a pro se alien to drop a claim for relief that he was entitled to pursue,....) At best for Wang, she has suggested that the IJ was impatient. She has not shown any hostility due to extrajudicial sources or such a degree of hostility that fair judgment was impossible. We conclude that Wang has not established a due process violation.