Opinion ID: 789781
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prejudgment

Text: 18 Hassan next argues that his right to due process was violated because the IJ had prejudged the case. Because we conclude that Hassan's argument is not supported by the record, we deny relief on this ground as well. 19 As we stated above, allegations of due process violations in removal hearings are reviewed de novo. Mikhailevitch, 146 F.3d at 391. We have stated that Fifth Amendment guarantees of due process extend to aliens in [removal] proceedings, entitling them to a full and fair hearing. Huicochea-Gomez v. INS, 237 F.3d 696, 699 (6th Cir.2001). Though [t]he IJ is afforded broad discretion to control the manner of interrogation in order to ascertain the truth, Mikhailevitch, 146 F.3d at 391 (internal quotation omitted), we recognize that [a] neutral judge is one of the most basic due process protections. Reyes-Melendez v. INS, 342 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir.2003) (internal quotation omitted); see also Ahmed v. Gonzales, 398 F.3d 722, 725 (6th Cir.2005) (It is undisputed that petitioners in such proceedings are entitled to an unbiased arbiter who has not prejudged their claims.). Due process is violated when the IJ behave[s] not as a neutral fact-finder interested in hearing the petitioner's evidence, but as a partisan adjudicator seeking to intimidate the [alien] and his counsel. Reyes-Melendez, 342 F.3d at 1007 (internal quotation omitted) (second alteration in original). 20 In this case, Hassan cites a number of statements the IJ made in his oral decision regarding Hassan's credibility. Specifically, the IJ referred to Hassan as completely unbelievable and his testimony as inherently incredible, internally inconsistent, and nonsensical. J.A. at 25, 27, 38 (IJ Decision & Order at 7, 9, 21). In addition, Hassan argues that the IJ's sarcastic comments mischaracterize Hassan's testimony and reveal a prejudgment in the case. See, e.g., J.A. at 33 (IJ Decision & Order at 16) (Well how did she afford to go to Syria, how did she afford to buy a bridal gown if they were poor refugees that can't even afford to send him to school....); J.A. at 39 (IJ Decision & Order at 22) (Hence, even if you believe one of respondent's stories, take your pick which one, he still loses.). While the language that the IJ used in announcing his decision may have been brusque, we are satisfied that it does not reveal an underlying bias in favor of the Government. Hassan was given a full and fair opportunity to present his case for relief in front of a neutral arbiter. To his detriment, Hassan presented testimony that was contradictory and inconsistent, and as a result, the IJ denied him relief. While the language the IJ employed could have been more artful, we cannot say that Hassan's due process rights were violated.