Opinion ID: 67546
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: One-Member Panel Review

Text: Finally, Sun argues that the BIA erred in failing to submit his case to a threemember panel instead of streamlining it for review by a one-member panel. A board member may assign a case for review by a three-member panel if certain circumstances are present. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(6). Because Sun did not have an automatic right to a three-member panel, the BIA did not err in exercising its discretion to assign only one member to his panel. Sun’s petition is denied in this regard. PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. determination had no bearing on the BIA’s decision and need not have been addressed. 4 Sun also argues that the IJ erred by (1) setting unfair time limitations on the asylum proceedings, resulting in incomplete interpretation and clarification by the translator; and (2) allowing improper testimony by the government attorney. We lack jurisdiction to consider these claims because Sun did not raise them before the BIA. See Sundar v. INS, 328 F.3d 1320, 1323 (11th Cir. 2003). 7