Opinion ID: 204015
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sufficiency of Record for Review

Text: Finally, Sihombing argues that inadequate transcription resulted in many indiscernibles in the transcript and that as a result, there is not a sufficient record for review of the IJ's decision by either the BIA or this Court. In support of this, he cites a Federal Regulation requiring that the hearing shall be recorded verbatim except for statements made off the record with the permission of the immigration judge. 8 C.F.R. § 1240.9. Because of this, Sihombing maintains that these indiscernibles in the record constitute a due process violation. Sihombing's due process argument is unavailing. [A] mere failure of transcription, by itself, does not rise to the level of a due process violation. Oroh, 561 F.3d at 65 (quoting Kheireddine v. Gonzáles, 427 F.3d 80, 85 (1st Cir.2005)). To succeed on a claim of inadequate transcription, Sihombing must show specific prejudice to his ability to perfect an appeal. Id. The absence of information from the transcript is not prejudicial if the missing information could reasonably be recreated by the complaining party. Id. The record does contain multiple instances where indiscernible is recorded in place of the text of what was said. However, a review of the transcript shows that most of the missing words can be inferred from their context. In addition, just like in Oroh, the bulk of the indiscernibles in the transcript are found during Sihombing's own testimony, or during comments by his attorney, who continues to represent him on appeal. See id. at 66. Further, Sihombing has failed to point out how the missing information prejudiced him. Since most of the indiscernible information was readily available to Sihombing, the missing information in the transcript was not prejudicial. Id. Without prejudice, Sihombing's transcript-based due process claim fails. We find that the Agency's determination that Sihombing has failed to establish past persecution or a clear probability of future persecution is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Sihombing's final argument based on a due process violation resulting from insufficient transcription also fails because he has not established that it created prejudice.