Opinion ID: 3012627
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the streamlining regulations

Text: In upholding the IJ’s determination denying Dia relief from removal, the BIA did not issue an opinion, but, instead, issued an “affirmance without opinion” (AWO) under its streamlining regulations. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7) (2002). The streamlining regulations have recently been the subject of many unsuccessful attacks. See, e.g., Khattak v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 250, 253 (4th Cir. 2003) (rejecting the argument that the regulations are “impermissibly retroactive”); Albathani v. INS, 318 F.3d 365, 377 (1st Cir. 2003) (rejecting a due process challenge); Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 264 F. Supp. 2d 14, 39 (D.D.C. 2003) (rejecting a challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act). Dia, with able support of amici, broadly attacks the streamlining regulations on two grounds: (1) as inconsistent with the INA; and (2) as violative of his due process rights.
The Supreme Court has “ ‘long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.’ ” Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977) (quoting Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 210 (1953)). With limited exceptions, Congress, in the INA, charges the Attorney General “with the administration and enforcement of [the INA] and other laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens.” 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(1) (2002). Pursuant to this power, Congress has mandated that the Attorney General “shall establish such regulations; . . . issue such instructions; and perform such other acts as he deems necessary for carrying out his authority under [the INA].” 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(3) (2002). Congress has further authorized that “[t]he Attorney General may provide by regulation for any other conditions or limitations on the 6 consideration of an application for asylum not inconsistent with this Act.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(5)(B) (2002). The Attorney General has delegated to the BIA many of his responsibilities under the immigration laws, see 1 Charles Gordon, Stanley Mailman, & Stephen Yale-Loehr, Immigration Law and Procedure § 3.02[1] (rev. ed. 2003) (stating that the BIA “exercises so much of the Attorney General’s authority under the immigration and nationality laws as the Attorney General may delegate to it”), and has further delegated supervision of the BIA to the Department of Justice’s Executive Office of Immigration Review. Id. The BIA, established by regulation, has existed in various guises and has held various responsibilities since 1922. Id. at § 3.05[1]. Initially, immigration laws were enforced by the Secretary of Labor, under whose supervision the administrative immigration appellate body was known as the “Board of Review.” Id. After Congress transferred the responsibility for immigration enforcement to the Attorney General in 1940, the Board of Review was renamed the Board of Immigration Appeals. In its present form, the BIA has been described as “a quasi-judicial body with exclusively appellate functions.” Id. The Attorney General promulgated the streamlining regulations in 1999 when the Board was faced with a crushing caseload, the number of cases having increased exponentially in a little over a decade. See Executive Office of Immigration Review: Board of Immigration Appeals Streamlining, 64 Fed. Reg. 56,135, 56,136 (Oct. 18, 1999) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 3). See generally Board of Immigration Appeals: Procedural Reforms to Improve Case Management, 67 Fed. Reg. 54,878, 54,878-79 (Aug. 26, 2002) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 3). Under the regulations, “the Chairman [of the BIA] may designate certain categories of cases as suitable for review” by designated Board members “who are authorized to affirm decisions of Immigration Judges . . . without opinion.” 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7)(i) (2002). The single BIA member to whom the case is assigned may affirm an IJ’s decision in a single sentence without an opinion if he or she determines that the result was correct, and that “(A) the issue on appeal is squarely controlled by existing Board or federal court 7 precedent and does not involve the application of precedent to a novel fact situation; or (B) the factual and legal questions raised on appeal are so insubstantial that threeMember review is not warranted.” 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7)(ii) (2002).2 Each AWO is exactly the same. It reads: “The Board affirms, without opinion, the results of the decision below. The decision is, therefore, the final agency determination. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7)(iii) (2002); see also Executive Office of Immigration Review: Board of Immigration Appeals Streamlining, 64 Fed. Reg. at 56,13738 (“The decision rendered below will be the final agency decision for judicial review purposes . . . . [T]he Immigration Judge’s decision becomes the decision reviewed.”). Such an order does not necessarily imply approval of all of the reasoning of the IJ’s decision, but does signify that the reviewing Board member considered that any errors by the IJ were harmless or immaterial. Id. If the single BIA member decides that the decision is inappropriate for affirmance without an opinion, the case is assigned to a three-member panel for review and decision. 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7)(iv) (2002). That panel, however, is also authorized to determine that a case should be affirmed without an opinion. Id.
We are “confronted [with] questions implicating an agency’s construction of the statute which it administers.” INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 424 (1999) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). For this reason, we apply the principles of deference described in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842 (1984). See Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. at 424 (“It is clear that principles of Chevron deference are applicable to this statutory scheme.”). We initially ask whether “the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue” we confront. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843. If it is, “the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a 2. Since the time of Dia’s appeal to the BIA, the streamlining regulations have been moved to a different section of chapter 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7). 8 permissible construction of the statute.” Id. at 843; see also Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. at 424. In doing so, we bear in mind that “judicial deference to the Executive Branch is especially appropriate in the immigration context where officials ‘exercise especially sensitive political functions that implicate questions of foreign relations.’ ” Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. at 425 (quoting INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 110 (1988)); see also Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 587, 597 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting this section of Aguirre-Aguirre); Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 551 (3d Cir. 2001) (acknowledging “the narrow scope of our review” under such circumstances). The streamlining regulations easily pass the first step of the Chevron inquiry. The INA “is silent . . . with respect to” streamlined administrative appeals. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843. The next question is whether the streamlining of administrative appeals “is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Id. If, as Dia contends, the streamlining regulations are inconsistent with the INA, they certainly are not based on a permissible construction of the statute. So, we must look at what the INA says regarding the BIA in particular, and administrative appeals in general.3 In so doing, we can discern nothing in the INA with which the streamlining regulations are inconsistent. See Abdulai, 239 F.3d at 555 (“[N]othing in the INA specifically requires the Board to explain its decisions.”). In fact, the INA says nothing whatsoever regarding the procedures of an administrative appeal, or, for that matter, any other procedures employed by the BIA. 3. We look at the INA at the time of Dia’s appeal to the BIA. The INA was amended by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, § 471, 116 Stat. 2135, 2192, 2205 (Nov. 25, 2002), which, on March 1, 2003, transferred the functions of the INS to various bureaus, the one dealing with asylum cases being the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services within the Department of Homeland Security. See generally 1 Gordon, Mailman, & Yale-Loehr, Immigration Law and Procedure 1:SA1-1-2. The functions of the Executive Office for Immigration Review continue to reside in the Department of Justice, under the direction of the Attorney General. Because of the status of the agency at the time this case was submitted, and for ease of reference, this opinion refers to the agency as the INS or merely as the “agency.” 9 As Dia points out, the INA refers to the BIA in its “definitions” section, in connection with its definition of the term “order of deportation.”4 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(A) (2002). The relevant provision reads, in pertinent part: The [“order of deportation”] shall become final upon the earlier of (i) a determination by the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming such order; or (ii) the expiration of the period in which the alien is permitted to seek review of such order by the Board of Immigration Appeals. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B) (2002). Under this provision, an order of deportation is not “final” until either the BIA has passed on it, or the time for seeking BIA review has expired. The statute also provides that the statutory right to judicial review of orders of deportation is only available for a “final order.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) (2002); Gao v. Ashcroft, 299 F.3d 266, 271 (3d Cir. 2002). Based on these two provisions, Dia argues that the BIA at the relevant time was an entity provided for by statute, and no longer existed solely by regulation. But even assuming that the BIA could not be eliminated without statutory authorization, we are hard pressed to conclude much more from the definitional statement at § 1101(a)(47)(B). It says absolutely nothing about procedures to be employed by the BIA, or the right to, or manner of, review generally; it only speaks to review by the BIA and its “affirming” the “order” of deportation. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B). Based on the fact that § 1101(a)(47)(B) contains the only mention of the BIA in the INA, it seems clear that Congress has left all procedural aspects of the BIA, especially how it hears cases, entirely to the Attorney General’s discretion. Id. 4. The provision reads in whole part: The term “order of deportation” means the order of the special inquiry officer, or other such administrative officer to whom the Attorney General has delegated responsibility for determining whether an alien is deportable, concluding that the alien is deportable or ordering deportation. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(A). 10 The statute’s references to an “administrative appeal” do not alter this conclusion. Only two statutory provisions of the INA reference the term “administrative appeal.” These provisions mandate that the procedure established for applying for asylum shall provide that — . . . (iii) in the absence of exceptional circumstances, final administrative adjudication of the asylum application, not including administrative appeal, shall be completed within 180 days after the date an application is filed; (iv) any administrative appeal shall be filed within 30 days of a decision granting or denying asylum, or within 30 days of the completion of removal proceedings before an immigration judge under section 1229a of this title, whichever is later. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(5)(A)(iii) & (iv) (2002) (emphasis added). Although these provisions contemplate some type of an administrative appeal in connection with applications for asylum, they fail to provide any guidance as to the procedural trappings of that appeal. Similarly unpersuasive is Dia’s citation to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4), which provides: If the immigration judge decides that the alien is removable and orders the alien to be removed, the judge shall inform the alien of the right to appeal that decision and of the consequences for failure to depart under the order of removal, including civil and criminal penalties. Id. (emphasis added). Even if we were to assume that this provision contemplates that an alien will have the opportunity for an administrative appeal, neither this provision nor any other provision of the INA references the procedural requirements of an administrative appeal or outlines a scheme inconsistent with the streamlining regulations. Instead, it only speaks generally of an “administrative appeal” and “the right to appeal,” and of the BIA only in the context of a “final” order. To conclude from 11 this language in the INA that the streamlining regulations are not a “permissible construction of the statute” under Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843, would require a sizable leap that we cannot make. The Supreme Court has forcefully emphasized that “[a]bsent constitutional constraints or extremely compelling circumstances the administrative agencies should be free to fashion their own rules of procedure and to pursue methods of inquiry capable of permitting them to discharge their multitudinous duties.” Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 543 (1978) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). This “basic tenet of administrative law,” id., has even more force in the immigration context where our deference is especially great. See Abdulai, 239 F.3d at 552 (“In light of the INA’s enormously broad delegation to the Attorney General, we would be extremely reluctant to hold that his interpretation is unreasonable.”); see also 1 Gordon, Mailman, & YaleLoehr, Immigration Law and Procedure § 3.02[2] (“[T]he theory of the [INA] is that all responsibility to enforce or administer the immigration laws is vested in the Attorney General, and that she may delegate or assign any of such powers in any manner she deems appropriate.”). We therefore hold that, in promulgating the streamlining regulations, the Attorney General did not run afoul of the INA.5
Dia next attacks the streamlining regulations as a deprivation of his constitutional right to due process under the Fifth Amendment.6 See U.S. Const. amend. V. We have plenary review over constitutional challenges to immigration procedures. Abdulrahman, 330 F.3d at 597. We agree with our sister courts of appeals that have passed 5. A fortiori, we reject Dia’s argument that the INA requires the BIA to conduct de novo review on appeal. 6. Dia suggests that his argument is tailored only to address how the BIA applied the streamlining regulations to him. However, his attack is broad and not based on any specifics of his case. Therefore, we view his due process challenge as a facial challenge to the procedures. 12 on this issue and conclude that the streamlining regulations do not violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. See Denko v. INS, 2003 WL 22879815, at  (6th Cir. Dec. 8, 2003); Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 2003 WL 22770121, at  (9th Cir. Nov. 24, 2003); Georgis v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 962, 967 (7th Cir. 2003); Mendoza v. United States Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1288 (11th Cir. 2003); Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830 (5th Cir. 2003); Albathani, 318 F.3d at 377. The basic elements of due process in this context are clear. Although “the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings,” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993), due process is “flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 (1972); see also Marincas v. Lewis, 92 F.3d 195, 203 (3d Cir. 1996) (“Precisely what minimum procedures are due under a statutory right depends on the circumstances of the particular situation.”). The due process afforded aliens stems from those statutory rights granted by Congress and the principle that “[m]inimum due process rights attach to statutory rights.” Marincas, 92 F.3d at 203; see also Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 226 (1976). Our concern, then, is whether the streamlining regulations afford aliens such as Dia their minimum due process rights. See Albathani, 318 F.3d at 375 (stating that an unadmitted alien present in the United States has only “limited” due process rights); see also Anwar v. INS, 116 F.3d 140, 144 (5th Cir. 1997) (“Due process challenges to deportation proceedings require an initial showing of substantial prejudice.”). In making this assessment, we look to see if the process at issue fits with the notion that “[t]he fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). Dia bases his primary due process argument on statements we made in Abdulai, where we expounded on this “ ‘fundamental requirement of due process’ ” articulated in Mathews. Abdulai, 239 F.3d at 549 (quoting Mathews, 13 424 U.S. at 333). In Abdulai, the BIA had issued a two-page per curiam opinion that contained a “terse” application of Board precedent to the specific facts of Abdulai’s case. Id. at 547. Abdulai argued, inter alia, that in so doing, “the BIA denied him due process by failing to make an individualized determination of his interests.” Id. at 549. We began our analysis of Abdulai’s due process argument by noting that, in the context of the adjudication of claims for relief from removal such as the one before us, due process “requires three things.” Id. at 555. “An alien: (1) is entitled to ‘factfinding based on a record produced before the decisionmaker and disclosed to’ him or her; (2) must be allowed to make arguments on his or her own behalf; and (3) has the right to ‘an individualized determination of his [or her] interests.’ ” Id. (quoting Llana-Castellon v. INS, 16 F.3d 1093, 1096 (10th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted)). Of these three requirements, Abdulai dealt solely with the third requirement, an “individualized determination.” In turn, Dia contends that, by issuing an AWO pursuant to the streamlining regulations, the BIA deprived him of his due process right to an “individualized determination” of his interest as that right was recognized in Abdulai. Although we ultimately concluded in Abdulai that there was no due process violation because we found that the BIA had in fact made an “individualized determination” of Abdulai’s application, id. at 550, Dia seizes on what we said as we reasoned toward that conclusion. One such comment was that we had previously “suggested that the BIA denies due process to an alien when it ‘act[s] as a mere rubberstamp.’ ” Id. (quoting Marincas, 92 F.3d at 202 n.7). We also noted that “the question for due process . . . is simply whether the Board made an individualized determination of Abdulai’s interests.” Id. (emphasis added). Dia argues that these observations require that we invalidate the streamlining regulations. Dia, however, takes our statements in Abdulai out of context. We made those statements in connection with Abdulai’s argument that the BIA had not “acknowledg[ed] or address[ed] any of his arguments.” Id. at 549. In Abdulai, we necessarily reviewed the BIA’s opinion, because the BIA had issued an opinion and the petitioner focused his 14 arguments on that opinion. Id. at 548. We therefore made the statements in Abdulai in the context of a situation in which the BIA had chosen to speak — thus forcing the reviewing court to examine the BIA’s reasoning — but had done so in a way that caused us to question whether the BIA had carefully reviewed the specific matter before it. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997) (“We have authority to review only an order of the BIA, not the IJ, unless the IJ’s decision has some impact on the BIA’s decision.”). The situation here is very different; the BIA did not opine on its own, but, instead, referred us to the IJ’s decision. Contrary to Dia’s suggestion, in Abdulai we did not impose a requirement that in all instances the BIA must indicate that it made an individualized determination of the claim for relief. In fact, we noted our approval of decisions of other courts of appeals that have upheld the BIA’s right to “ ‘simply state that it affirms the IJ’s decision for the reasons set forth in that decision.’ ” Abdulai, 239 F.3d at 549 n.2 (quoting Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7 (1st Cir. 1996)). We also made clear that “[t]here are some situations in which a court of appeals effectively reviews an IJ’s decision, but [that Abdulai’s was] not one of them.” Id. One of those situations arises, we noted, when the BIA “defers” to the IJ. Id. In that situation, “a reviewing court must, as a matter of logic, review the IJ’s decision to assess whether the BIA’s decision to defer was appropriate.” Id.; see also Abdulrahman, 330 F.3d at 591. And so, here, where the BIA directs us to the opinion and decision of the IJ who originally assessed Dia’s application, we review the IJ’s opinion. Dia, nonetheless, also insists that the streamlining regulations violate his right to an “individualized determination” because they specifically state that an AWO does not necessarily imply approval of all of the reasoning of the IJ’s decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7)(iii) (2002). But he fails to articulate why or how this is so. We are unaware of any requirement, let alone any constitutional requirement, that an agency adjudicator must commit to writing or otherwise verbalize his or her reasoning, where, as here, the agency has directed us to an opinion for 15 review. In Dia’s case, the due process right to an “individualized determination” was accorded to Dia at the IJ level, where the IJ “reasoned” her decision, and the BIA gave the result its imprimatur pursuant to its regulations. Certainly, the BIA could have articulated its reasons for affirming the IJ’s order, but just because it had the power to do so, does not mean the Constitution required it to exercise that power.7 See Abdulai, 239 F.3d at 549 n.3 (“Having the power to do something and being required to do it are not the same thing.”). Equally unavailing is amici’s argument that “fundamental rule[s] of administrative law” enunciated by the Supreme Court in SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196-97 (1947), support Dia’s argument that the BIA’s failure to adopt the reasoning of the IJ, in accordance with the streamlining regulations, violated his constitutional right to due process. In fact, we believe that Chenery actually supports the opposite conclusion. In Chenery, the Court emphasized a “simple but fundamental rule of administrative law . . . that a reviewing court, in dealing with a determination or judgment which an administrative agency alone is authorized to make, must judge the propriety of such action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency.” Id. at 196 (emphasis added). The “corollary” of this rule is that the basis of an administrative action “must be set forth with such clarity as to be understandable.” Id. The Court therein was concerned with ensuring that a 7. In fact, we see the summary affirmance process in the streamlining regulations to be little different from the process employed by our court by which we have summarily affirmed rulings of the district court. See 3d Cir. Internal Operating Procedures § 10.6. In the past, we often affirmed via “judgment orders,” with no mention of whether or not we agreed with the reasoning provided by the district court. Indeed, the parties, and, at times, the Supreme Court were left to guess on what grounds we affirmed. It is well-established, however, that this procedure is constitutional. See Furman v. United States, 720 F.2d 263, 264 (2d Cir. 1983) (“There is no requirement in law that a federal appellate court’s decision be accompanied by a written opinion.”); United States v. Baynes, 548 F.2d 481, 482 (3d Cir. 1977) (holding that an affirmance by judgment order without an opinion did not constitute a denial of due process of law); see also Fed. R. App. P. 36(a)(2) (outlining the procedure for entering a judgment “rendered without opinion”). 16 reviewing court may “test” administrative action. Id. Under the streamlining regulations, this requirement is met. The BIA clearly “invokes” the IJ’s opinion as the grounds on which the agency’s decision rests; we thus “judge the propriety” of the IJ’s action in order to “test” the agency’s action. As the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit said: [Petitioner and Amici] both overlook the plain language of Chenery, which refers to agencies in their entirety, not individual components of agencies. Here, the relevant agency — the INS — has presented a statement of reasons for its decision, albeit from the IJ rather than the BIA. Chenery does not require that this statement come from the BIA rather than the IJ. Albathani, 318 F.3d at 377; see also Nagi El Moraghy v. Ashcroft, 331 F.3d 195, 206 (1st Cir. 2003) (“The provision of reasons in the IJ’s opinion satisfies the requirement in SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196-97 (1946), that administrative agencies set forth with clarity the basis for their decisions, and the AWO procedure did not prevent there being meaningful review.” (citation omitted)); Dominguez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 678, 680 (8th Cir. 2003) (stating that “the opinion of the immigration judge is sufficient to satisfy th[e] requirement” in Chenery Corp. that “an agency must set out the basis of its decision”). Dia asserts three other ways in which the AWO violated his due process right: it denied him “meaningful review”; it prevented our court from providing meaningful review; and it was not “fair.” Although Dia does not match these due process arguments with any of the three-requirements for due process we outlined in Abdulai, they appear to be variations on his theme that the issuance of an AWO denied him of his right to an “individualized determination.” Regardless of their label, we reject these contentions as well. Dia’s claim that the AWO denied him his so-called “due process right to meaningful review” lacks substance. Dia specifically maintains that he has the right to meaningful review by the BIA. Other than pointing generally to the Due Process Clause, however, Dia does not identify the source of this alleged right. We are unaware of any authority 17 supporting a due process right to “meaningful review” by an administrative appellate body. The “right to meaningful review” that Dia alleges is clearly distinguished from “[t]he fundamental requirement of due process [that] is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner,” Mathews, 424 U.S. at 333, that we discussed above. The “meaningfulness” requirement of Mathews pertains to “the opportunity to be heard” and the “manner” in which one is heard, not to a review by an administrative appellate body. Id. Moreover, any recognized right to “meaningful review,” as we note more fully in the margin, has been confined to the context of review by federal courts, and not extended to review by an administrative appellate body.8 See also, e.g., Awolesi v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 227, 232 (3d Cir. 2003) (“In order for us to be able to give meaningful review to the BIA’s decision, we must have some insight into its reasoning.”); Kayembe v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 231, 238 (3d 8. See, e.g., Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 162 (1999) (“The APA requires meaningful review; and its enactment meant stricter judicial review of agency factfinding than Congress believed some courts had previously conducted.”); Salve Regina Coll. v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 234 (1991) (“Although some might say that this Court has not spoken with a uniformly clear voice on the issue of deference to a district judge’s determination of state law, a careful consideration of our cases makes apparent the duty of appellate courts to provide meaningful review of such a determination.”); United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828, 837-38 (1987) (stating that “there must be some meaningful review of [an] administrative proceeding” where a determination made therein will “play a critical role in the subsequent imposition of a criminal sanction” and that, “at the very least that where the defects in an administrative proceeding foreclose judicial review of that proceeding, an alternative means of obtaining judicial review must be made available . . . .” (citations omitted)); Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 376 (1977) (“We observe only that when the court exercises its discretion in dealing with the problem of laid-off employees in light of the facts developed at the hearings on remand, it should clearly state its reasons so that meaningful review may be had on appeal.”); Fein v. Selective Serv. Sys. Local Bd. No. 7, Yonkers, N.Y., 405 U.S. 365, 380 (1972) (“The rationale is that some statement of reasons is necessary for ‘meaningful’ review of the administrative decision when the registrant’s claim has met the statutory criteria or has placed him prima facie within the statutory exemption, and his veracity is the principal issue.”). 18 Cir. 2003) (“When deficiencies in the BIA’s decision make it impossible for us to meaningfully review its decision, we must vacate that decision and remand so that the BIA can further explain its reasoning.”). Quite clearly, “[a]n alien has no constitutional right to any administrative appeal at all,” Albathani, 318 F.3d at 376; see also Guentchev v. INS, 77 F.3d 1036, 1037 (7th Cir. 1996), and, therefore, no constitutional right to a “meaningful” administrative appeal. Nor are we persuaded by Dia’s related argument that the streamlining regulations — or, their “opaque” nature, as amici describe them — prevent us as a court of appeals from engaging in a meaningful review of the agency’s actions. See Simmons v. Beyer, 44 F.3d 1160, 1169 (3d Cir. 1995) (stating that due process requires that a guaranteed “appellate procedure must furnish the components necessary for meaningful review”). We cannot agree with amici’s claim that “the summary affirmance process impermissibly strips the federal courts of the ability to properly review critical agency action.” The streamlining regulations in no way restrict our ability to review the agency’s denial of relief from removal. An agency, not a particular administrative appellate body, must set forth the basis for its order with sufficient specificity to permit meaningful review by this court. See Albathani, 318 F.3d at 377. Here, as we discuss in the next section, we have no doubt as to the basis for the agency’s decision as put forth for review by the BIA. The BIA presents for our review the reasoning and decision of the IJ as that of the Attorney General. See Executive Office of Immigration Review: Board of Immigration Appeals Streamlining, 64 Fed. Reg. at 56,137-38. All that is required for our meaningful review is that the agency — as represented by an opinion of the BIA or IJ — put forth a sufficiently reasoned opinion. See Mendoza, 327 F.3d at 1289 (“[T]he meaningful review of the INS’s removability determination is not precluded by the brevity of the BIA’s summary affirmance decision because an appellate court ‘will continue to have the IJ’s decision and the record upon which it is based available for review.’ ” (quoting Albathani, 318 F.3d at 377)). While in many instances knowing the BIA’s reasoning might prove helpful 19 to our review, the BIA’s failure to express it does not amount to a constitutional violation. Neither the Constitution nor Congress guarantee a de novo review by the BIA, Abdulai, 239 F.3d at 549 n.3, nor do they guarantee a right to a fully reasoned opinion by the BIA. And, as we have noted, we see no constitutional significance in the fact that an AWO does not necessarily imply approval of all of the reasoning of the IJ. We are able to meaningfully review the final determination of the agency, and, in this context, that is all that due process requires. We are similarly unmoved by Dia’s argument that the streamlining regulations violate basic due process requirements of “fairness.” See Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 154 (1945) (“Meticulous care must be exercised lest the procedure by which he is deprived of that liberty not meet the essential standards of fairness.”). We have made clear that “[w]hen Congress directs an agency to establish a procedure, . . . it can be assumed that Congress intends that procedure to be a fair one.” Marincas, 92 F.3d at 203. What is “fair” within the context of immigration proceedings, however, need not always measure up to the requirements of fairness in other contexts, especially because “[a]liens only have those statutory rights granted by Congress.” Id.; see also Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 79-80 (1976) (“In the exercise of its broad power over naturalization and immigration, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.”). We find nothing “unfair” in a constitutional sense about the INS’s streamlining procedures. An applicant retains a full and fair opportunity to make his case to the IJ, and has a right to review of that decision by the BIA, and then by a court of appeals. See Guentchev, 77 F.3d at 1038 (“The combination of a reasoned decision by an administrative law judge plus review in a United States Court of Appeals satisfies constitutional requirements.”); cf. Zubeda, 333 F.3d at 480 (“Justice requires that an applicant for asylum or withholding of deportation be afforded a meaningful opportunity to establish his or her claim.”); Abdulrahman, 330 F.3d at 596 (stating that an alien threatened with deportation has a right to a “full and fair hearing”). The fact 20 that the review is done by one member of the BIA and that the decision is not accompanied by a fully reasoned BIA decision may be less desirable from the petitioner’s point of view, but it does not make the process constitutionally “unfair.” Neither Dia nor amici has provided any reason for us to conclude otherwise. Our dissenting colleagues who disagree on this point would strike down the regulations, contending that they alter an established administrative scheme under the INA. However, upon further scrutiny, it becomes clear that Judge Stapleton is not really taking issue with the regulations as a perversion of the statute or even agency practice, but rather as a violation of principles of judicial review that we have espoused in our case law.9 Admittedly, the regulations will cause us to review cases affirmed by the Board without opinion. But, they do not force us to venture “through the looking glass” (like Alice in Wonderland), because we have the IJ’s reasoning and the record necessary to exercise our function of review. We have always required that the review process be a meaningful one, aided by a reasoned opinion from the agency.10 We do not today cast that principle aside. Rather, we hold that when the issue before us is the validity of an agency’s regulations establishing its procedures, unless they violate Congressional dictates or give rise to a due process violation, the regulations must stand, especially where, as here, Congress has specifically delegated the power to establish procedures by regulation.11 9. While arguing that we should not give Chevron deference to the streamlining regulations, Judge Stapleton’s reasoning does not really track Chevron, as he is not decrying the agency’s interpretation of the law. Rather, he is decrying the agency’s establishment of a process that, he believes, runs counter to principles of judicial review. This is not a Chevron analysis. 10. See Abdulai, 239 F.3d at 555 (“the availability of judicial review necessarily contemplates something for us to review”). 11. See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 524-25 (1978) (“[T]his Court has for more than four decades emphasized that the formulation of procedures was basically to be left within the discretion of the agencies to which Congress had confided the responsibility for substantive judgments. In FCC v. 21