Opinion ID: 1188766
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did the IJ violate Uppal's due process rights and the Immigration and Nationality Act in issuing a final order of removal against Uppal without holding a scheduled contested hearing on the merits?

Text: Uppal contends the IJ denied him due process of law by issuing a final order of removal against him without first holding an evidentiary hearing to address the contested issues raised in his motion to terminate. Specifically, Uppal contends that he was prejudiced by the inability to challenge the authentication of his Canadian record of conviction, and the evidence pertaining to the charge of fraud and misrepresentation. We review de novo claims of due process violations in removal proceedings. Burgos-Abril v. INS, 58 F.3d 475, 476 (9th Cir.1995). Under 8 U.S.C. ง 1229a, an alien is afforded certain rights, including the reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against [him], to present evidence on [his] own behalf, and to cross-examine witnesses presented by the Government[.] 8 U.S.C. ง 1229a(b)(4)(B). In general, however, an alien `has been denied a full and fair hearing which due process provides only if the thing complained of causes the alien to suffer some prejudice.' Burgos-Abril, 58 F.3d at 476 (quoting Nicholas v. INS, 590 F.2d 802, 809 (9th Cir.1979)). To show prejudice, the alien must show the alleged violation potentially affected the outcome of the proceedings. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 965 (9th Cir.2002).