Opinion ID: 2978801
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Due Process Claim–Failure to Recuse

Text: Petitioner first argues that her due process rights were violated when the immigration judge refused to recuse herself from the removal proceedings. Because the Board in this case, after reviewing the immigration judge’s decision, issued an independent opinion as to the recusal denial, we will review the decision of the Board as the final agency determination. See, e.g., Morgan v. Keisler, 507 F.3d 1053, 1057 (6th Cir. 2007). Legal conclusions, such as whether or not Petitioner has proven her due process claim, are reviewed de novo. See Mikhailevitch v. INS, 146 F.3d 384, 391 (6th Cir. 1998).
Although Perlaska is entitled to due process in her removal proceedings, see CastellanoChacon v. INS, 341 F.3d 533, 553 (6th Cir. 2003), she has not shown how the immigration judge’s refusal to recuse herself amounted to a due process violation. “Reviewing an alleged due process 8 violation is a two-step inquiry: first, whether there was a defect in the removal proceedings; and second, whether the alien was prejudiced because of it.” Vasha v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 863, 872 (6th Cir. 2005). As to the first inquiry, both parties note in their briefs that an immigration judge has an obligation to recuse herself when she has “served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(3). Perlaska points to the fact that the immigration judge, prior to her judicial appointment, had worked in the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) as Chief Counsel while Perlaska’s removal proceedings were pending. But there is nothing in the record to suggest that the judge, while at DHS, ever participated in Perlaska’s case in any of the capacities listed in the statute. Furthermore, the immigration judge specifically stated in her decision on the recusal motion that she never had any direct or indirect contact with Perlaska’s case while she was at DHS. Petitioner’s only response is that “[e]ven if it is not contained in the record, Petitioner nor her counsel could be assured that another attorney had not come to [the judge] during [her DHS tenure] and consulted with her regarding the case.” However, the judge’s prior holding of this position does not in itself prove that she had any involvement in the case. Abdulahad v. Holder, 581 F.3d 290, 296 (6th Cir. 2009); see also Petrov v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 800, 803 (7th Cir. 2006) (“The Chief Counsel of a large [government immigration] office is unlikely to play any role in routine decisions of this kind.”). Petitioner has the burden of proof here to show that there was in fact a defect in the proceedings; the mere possibility of one is not sufficient to show actual constitutional error. In a separate attempt to show an actual procedural defect, Petitioner points to the fact that the immigration judge “interrupted counsel in his line of questioning” with questions of her own that 9 were “adversarial in nature.” Immigration judges, however, have “broad discretion in conducting” removal proceedings. Castellano-Chacon, 341 F.3d at 553. Furthermore, immigration judges are statutorily authorized to “interrogate, examine, and cross-examine the alien and any witness.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1); see Abdulahad, 581 F.3d at 296. Petitioner points to no precedent or anything in the record to indicate that the judge’s questions amounted to an abuse of this discretion or to some independent due process violation. Finally, Petitioner has also failed to show any prejudice from these alleged defects. Petitioner fails even to argue on appeal the she was prejudiced by them.5 Without a showing of actual prejudice, we cannot say that Petitioner has successfully made out her due process claim even if we were to find a constitutional error on the part of the immigration judge. Accordingly, we deny Perlaska’s petition as to her due process claim.