Opinion ID: 2684157
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lima's Silence

Text: Moving on, we must now account for Lima's previous silence on two supposed due process violations. First, Lima contends that the IJ denied him due process by denying his second attorney's request to amend the original pleadings. He says this is so because the IJ ignored counsel's plausible and sufficient explanations for requesting to amend the pleadings. See Karim, 424 F.3d at 111 (stating that [w]here no plausible reason is offered for a request [to amend the pleadings], the word 'no' is plainly sufficient). Second, Lima argues that the IJ abused his discretion, resulting in a denial of due process, by denying his request for a continuance to give him a further opportunity to vacate his 2009 conviction. Specifically, Lima contends that he showed good cause, and that his request should have been granted pursuant to applicable regulations. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.29 and 1440.6 (permitting an IJ to grant a continuance for good cause shown). We, however, cannot decide these particular claims. It is well-established that this Court may only review a final order of removal if the [noncitizen] has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the [noncitizen] as of right. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Kinisu v. Holder, 721 F.3d 29, 34 (1st Cir. 2013). We do make an exception for due process claims of the kind the BIA could not adjudicate because of their predominately -18- constitutional character since the BIA is without jurisdiction to adjudicate purely constitutional issues. Ravindran v. I.N.S., 976 F.2d 754, 762 (1st Cir. 1992). However, [w]hen constitutional claims 'involve procedural errors correctable by the BIA, applicants must raise such claims as part of their administrative appeal.' Kandamar v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 65, 71 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting Capric v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1075, 1087 (7th Cir. 2004)). Lima's objections to alleged procedural errors, repackaged as due process claims, fall squarely in the latter category of due process claims. Both of his claims center on rulings that fell within the IJ's discretionary decision-making authority, and which, if in error, could have been corrected by the BIA. See, e.g., O'Connell v. Hyatt Hotels of Puerto Rico, 357 F.3d 152 (1st Cir. 2004) (denial of request to amend pleadings reviewed for abuse of discretion); Sheikh v. Holder, 696 F.3d 147, 149 (1st Cir. 2012) (denial of continuance reviewed for abuse of discretion). Claims of this nature are not exempted from the exhaustion requirement. Our review of the record makes plain that Lima's appeal to the BIA failed to raise any argument whatsoever regarding the IJ's denial of his sought-after continuance or his request to amend the pleadings. Lima's silence precludes him from bringing those -19- claims before us now. Kinisu, 721 F.3d at 34.9 Accordingly, Lima has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his due process claims, and we refuse to consider them.