Opinion ID: 2716505
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Duque's due process claims

Text: We do have jurisdiction to consider on of Duque's arguments: that the IJ and the BIA erred by allowing the CIS to adjudicate his I-751 waiver petition in violation of the CIS's own practice and procedure. Duque points to an internal memo released by then Acting Associate Director of the Domestic Operations Directorate of the CIS, according to which [a]n IJ cannot review -13- an I-751 petition . . . . unless [the CIS] has first adjudicated the petition on its merits, and if a waiver request petition follows the denial of a joint filed petition then the [CIS] will evaluate the new petition separately from the previous denial. Memorandum from Donald Neufeld, the Acting Associate Director, Domestic Operations Directorate, of the CIS, to Field Leaders in the CIS on the Proper Ways to Adjudicate I-751 Applications and I- 751 Waiver Petitions (Oct. 9, 2009)(on file with the CIS). Duque claims the agency erred when it incorporated by reference the reasoning used to deny his original I-751 petition in its denial of Duque's I-751 waiver petition. He asserts that this action violated his due process rights because it deprived him of his right to an adjudication on the merits -- including an interview -- of his I-751 waiver petition by the CIS, prior to a ruling from an IJ. Such a violation, according to Duque, requires us to vacate the BIA's decision and remand the case back to the CIS even if, in his own words, his chances of obtaining a waiver are slim. Yet, before a petitioner in an immigration case may advance a procedural due process claim, he must allege some cognizable prejudice fairly attributable to the challenged process. Lattab v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 8, 20 (1st Cir. 2004) (citing Ojeda-Terrazas v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 292, 302 (5th Cir. 2002)); Bernal-Vallejo v. INS, 195 F.3d 56, 64 (1st Cir. 1999)). -14- Prejudice is an amorphous concept, and necessarily so, given the wide variety of facts that may arise. Kheireddine v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 80, 85 (1st Cir. 2005). On this record, Duque's hearing before the IJ cured any potential prejudice Duque might have faced due to the alleged procedural transgression. Even assuming that the failure to hold a second interview during the adjudication of Duque's I-751 waiver petition as suggested by an internal INS memo4 could abridge a petitioner's due process rights -- a rather dubious proposition -- Duque has failed to show any cognizable prejudice. In his brief, Duque does not assert that, if given the procedural safeguards he seeks, the result in this case would be any different. Ojeda-Terrazas, 290 F.3d at 302 (refusing to reach the merits of petitioner's due process claim where the petitioner failed to assert that the outcome of the case would have been different had proper procedure been followed). Indeed, given the utter lack of reliable evidence to support his case, it is unlikely the result would differ. 4 We note that the memo is intended solely for the training and guidance of [CIS] personnel in performing their duties relative to the adjudication of applications. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or by any individual or other party in removal proceedings, in litigation with the United States, or in any other form or manner. Memorandum from Donald Neufeld, the Acting Associate Director, Domestic Operations Directorate, of the CIS, to Field Leaders in the CIS on the Proper Ways to Adjudicate I-751 Applications and I-751 Waiver Petitions (Oct. 9, 2009)(on file with the CIS). -15- Instead of arguing he might have otherwise fared better, Duque contends that it was a violation of his due process rights for the CIS to fail to provide him with an interview in connection to his I-751 waiver petition. He also protests he was not provided a point by point explanation as to why the evidence submitted in connection with that petition was insufficient to overcome the CIS's findings in its initial joint I-751 decision that Duque had provided false statements and information. The record, however, reveals otherwise. At the removal hearing, Duque was offered the opportunity to renew his request for a waiver as well as fully present his case by submitting documentary evidence in support of his request5 -- a right Duque had, but failed to exercise. See In re Herrera Del Orden, 25 I. & N. Dec. 589, 595 (BIA 2011) (stating that under 8 C.F.R. § 1216.5(f), when an alien seeks review in removal proceedings of a CIS decision denying his waiver application, the alien may renew his application before the IJ and present new evidence in support of his request, to satisfy his burden to establish eligibility for relief from removal). Thus, the IJ did adjudicate Duque's petition on the merits, with the record that stood before it. Further, the BIA found that the IJ fully addressed Duque's waiver request by carefully considering Duque's evidence 5 Duque acknowledges that he was required to submit documentary evidence of a shared life with Gladys to the IJ -- a task he failed to complete. Additionally, Duque was unable to recall what evidence he submitted as part of his I-751 waiver petition. -16- and testimony in making its decision, and it did not base the decision solely on the prior denial of the joint I-751 petition. That the record was barren of any credible evidence in Duque's favor is a defect entirely of his own making. Thus, Duque is unable to sufficiently allege a cognizable prejudice, and as a result, he is unable to sustain a procedural due process claim. See Lattab, 384 F.3d at 20.