Mario Roldan v. Atty Gen USA

Filing

MANDATE ISSUED, filed.

Download PDF
Mario Roldan v. Atty Gen USA Doc. 0 Att. 1 Case: 09-1481 Document: 003110209805 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2010 NOT PRECEDENTIAL U N IT E D STATES COURT OF APPEALS F O R THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ N o . 09-1481 ___________ M A R IO ROLDAN, P e titio n e r v. A T T O R N E Y GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Respondent ____________________________________ O n Petition for Review of an Order of the B o a rd of Immigration Appeals (A g e n c y No. A079-697-526) Im m ig ratio n Judge: Honorable Margaret Reichenberg ____________________________________ S u b m itte d Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) M a y 12, 2010 B e f o re : SLOVITER, JORDAN and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges (O p in io n filed: May 17, 2010) ___________ O P IN IO N ___________ P E R CURIAM M a rio Roldan petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration A p p e a ls ("BIA") affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") order of removal. The A tto rn e y General has filed a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. For Dockets.Justia.com Case: 09-1481 Document: 003110209805 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2010 th e reasons that follow, we will grant the Attorney General's motion and dismiss the p e titio n for review in part and deny it in part. P e titio n e r, Mario Roldan, is a native and citizen of Colombia. He entered the U n ite d States in June 1998 and overstayed his visa. On April 23, 2001, he married a U n ite d States citizen who petitioned for, and received, conditional permanent resident s ta tu s for her husband. In June 2003, Roldan filed for divorce. After the final judgment o f divorce was entered in October 2003, he filed a request for a discretionary waiver of th e requirement to file a joint petition to remove the conditional basis of his permanent re sid e n t status under INA § 216(c)(4)(B). See 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B). His a p p lic a tio n was denied, and his conditional permanent resident status was terminated on J u n e 10, 2006. Roldan was then placed into removal proceedings, at which time he re n e w e d his waiver application. The IJ denied his application, concluding that Roldan h a d failed to meet his burden of proving that his marriage was entered into in good faith. The BIA affirmed and dismissed his appeal. After Roldan timely filed a petition for re v ie w , the parties were asked to address this Court's jurisdiction to review the denial of th e waiver pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In response, the Attorney General m o v e d to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. R o ld a n raises two issues on appeal: first, that the IJ violated his Fifth Amendment rig h t to a full and fair hearing by failing to act as a neutral factfinder, failing to consider a ll relevant testimony, and setting a hostile tone; and second, that the BIA abused its 2 Case: 09-1481 Document: 003110209805 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/08/2010 d is c re tio n in failing to remand the matter to the IJ with instructions to grant the requested w a iv e r. In support of the latter claim, Roldan argues that he submitted sufficient e v id e n c e to demonstrate a bona fide marital relationship and that the IJ therefore erred in d en ying his request for a waiver. W e do not have jurisdiction over the question whether the BIA abused its d isc re tio n in dismissing Roldan's appeal on the ground that the IJ properly denied his re q u e st for a discretionary waiver. See Urena-Tavarez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 154, 161 (3d C ir. 2004) (holding that, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), the Court may not review the d is c re tio n a ry denial of a waiver pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)). However, as the A tto rn e y General recognizes, we retain jurisdiction over constitutional claims or q u e s tio n s of law pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). See Sukwanputra v. Gonzales, 4 3 4 F.3d 627, 634 (3d Cir. 2006) (holding that constitutional claims raised in a petition f o r review elude the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of the INA). Thus, we may consider w h e th e r Roldan's right to due process was violated by the IJ's conduct of his hearing. R o ld a n claims that by repeatedly interrupting his counsel and questioning Roldan h erse lf, the IJ created an intimidating environment. He also maintains that the IJ d e m e a n e d Roldan and acted in a disparaging manner towards him. Taken as a whole, R o ld a n contends that the IJ's behavior during the removal proceedings indicated that she p re ju d g e d his case and did not give fair consideration to the testimony of petitioner or any 3 Case: 09-1481 Document: 003110209805 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/08/2010 o f the three witnesses he presented to corroborate his account of the marriage.1 W h ile there is no constitutional right to a discretionary waiver, aliens facing re m o v a l are nonetheless entitled to due process. See Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 5 4 9 (3d Cir. 2001). Due process in this context requires that an alien be provided with a f u ll and fair hearing and a reasonable opportunity to present evidence. See Romanishyn v . Attorney Gen., 455 F.3d 175, 185 (3d Cir. 2006). Additionally, we have held that IJ's h a v e a duty to remain neutral and impartial when conducting immigration hearings and th a t an IJ's statements and behavior while conducting a hearing may rise to the level of a d u e process violation when the IJ abandons her role as a neutral factfinder and insults and b elittles a petitioner. See, e.g., Wang v. Attorney Gen., 423 F.3d 260, 268-69 (3d Cir. 2 0 0 5 ); Fiadjoe v. Attorney Gen., 411 F.3d 135,154-55 (3d Cir. 2005); Abdulrahman v. A s h c ro f t, 330 F.3d 587, 596 (3d Cir. 2003). Upon a thorough review of the record, we conclude that while the IJ was at times s h o rt with Roldan, her conduct did not in any way infringe on his right to due process. The transcript of the proceedings indicates that the IJ endeavored to permit Roldan to f u lly develop his claim and was primarily concerned with clearly establishing the facts for As part of this argument, Roldan criticizes the IJ's characterization and evaluation of th e evidence. We do not have jurisdiction to review that aspect of the proceedings. See U ren a-T av are z, 367 F.3d at 161 ("It follows that whether we agree with the IJ's c h a ra c te riz a tio n of the underlying evidence as credible vel non which led him to conclude th a t this was not a good faith marriage, is irrelevant, as the statute itself gives the A tto rn e y General (acting through his designee) the sole discretion to weigh the e v i d e n c e ." ) . 4 1 Case: 09-1481 Document: 003110209805 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/08/2010 the record. She placed no restriction on the number of witnesses he presented (A.R. 89), s h e asked clarifying questions when his answers were unclear or contradictory in an a tte m p t to develop a clear and complete record (A.R. 100, 103-05, 109 112-13, 115, 1192 0 , 121-22, 131, 132-33, 136-38), and she gave him time to confer with counsel and q u e stio n e d him extensively to ensure that he fully understood the implications of waiving h is right to request voluntary departure. (A.R. 212-17.) While the IJ was active in the c o n d u c t of the proceedings, her conduct bears no resemblance to that which we have f o u n d to constitute a due process violation. See Wang, 423 F.3d at 269-70 (criticizing IJ' s personal attacks on petitioner's parenting, calling him "selfish" and a "horrible f a th e r," speculating that his wife might have been sterilized after their arrival in the U n ited States to bolster his asylum claim, and focusing on issues which were irrelevant to p e titio n e r' s asylum claim). Based on the foregoing, we will grant the Attorney General's motion to dismiss for la c k of jurisdiction as to Roldan's claim that the BIA abused its discretion in reviewing th e IJ's denial of a waiver pursuant to INA § 216(c)(4)(B), and we will deny the petition f o r review as to Roldan's claim that he was deprived of his Fifth Amendment right to due p r o c e s s in the conduct of his removal proceedings. 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?