Opinion ID: 149042
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: DISCUSSION Larios's Arguments

Text: While Larios's brief is far from a paragon of clarity, he seems to be arguing two separate points. First, he contends though vaguely at bestthat the affirmance without opinion (AWO) procedure in and of itself is constitutionally infirm. Consequently, the Government addressed the issue in its reply brief. Second, Larios argues that the BIA's use of the AWO procedure in this instance violated his due process rights because the IJ allegedly failed to consider all the grounds for relief raised by him. More specifically, Larios claims that even though the IJ made findings as to the particular social group of youth resistant to gangs, the IJ failed to specifically address Larios's claim that if deported, Larios would be a street child. We will discuss these two arguments sequentially. We begin by addressing briefly the constitutionality of the AWO procedure.