Opinion ID: 2973555
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Inaccurate Record

Text: Mr. Sterkaj asserts that the BIA denied him due process by relying upon an “incomplete and inaccurate” transcript to review his case. The transcript of the removal proceedings is indisputably inaccurate, as it contains several pages of testimony from an unrelated immigration proceeding. We note with concern that the government failed to meet its obligation to prepare a reasonably accurate and complete record of the removal hearing upon Mr. Sterkaj’s appeal from the IJ’s order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(C), amended by PL 109-162; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.5; 8 C.F.R. § 1240.9. Due process demands a reasonably accurate and complete transcript to allow for meaningful appellate review and to allow the alien to mount a challenge to the proceedings conducted before the IJ.2 This court, however, lacks jurisdiction to consider Mr. Sterkaj’s due process claim because he did not first present it to the BIA so that it could have corrected the error. Although an alien’s due process challenge generally does not require exhaustion (the BIA lacks authority to review constitutional challenges), the alien must raise correctable procedural errors to the BIA. “[O]nly claims properly presented to the BIA and considered on their merits can be reviewed by this court in an immigration appeal.” Ramani v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 554, 559 (6th Cir. 2004); accord 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (providing that federal courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over an alien removal appeal where the alien has failed to exhaust all administrative remedies). Because Mr. Sterkaj failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his due process claim, we are precluded from reviewing it. 2. Criteria for Invoking the Summary Affirmance Procedure Mr. Sterkaj contends that the BIA violated 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) by streamlining his case when the case did not meet a key criterion for summary affirmance—specifically, Mr. Sterkaj reads 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)(i)(A) as requiring that BIA precedent squarely control, in this case, the IJ’s frivolous-application finding. As in Denko v. INS, 351 F.3d 717, 732 (6th Cir. 2003), we “assum[e] without deciding” that we can review the streamlining decision given the absence of substantial factual or legal questions warranting three-member review. By its plain language, the regulation does not limit summary affirmance to cases where BIA precedent squarely controls the issue. It requires either that the issue is squarely controlled by precedent or that the factual and legal issues raised on appeal are insufficiently substantial to warrant three-member review. Denko, 351 F.3d at 727. As we have determined here, Mr. Sterkaj’s challenges as to credibility, frivolousness, and due process are not so substantial as to warrant three-member review. This case satisfies the 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) criteria. Accordingly, we uphold the BIA’s exercise of its summary-affirmance procedure here.