F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 9 2004
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JEMILA EBRAHIM HABIB,
Petitioner,
v. No. 03-9525
(BIA No. A79-512-896)
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General (Petition for Review)
of the United States,
Respondent.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR , Circuit Judge, BRORBY , Senior Circuit Judge, and
HENRY , Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Petitioner Jemila E. Habib seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) order that summarily affirmed the denial of her requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture,
and implicitly denied her motion to remand to the Immigration Judge (IJ) for
consideration of new evidence. She raises several issues, many relating in one
way or another to the BIA’s use of the streamlined review procedure set out in
8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7), to which she strongly objects. 1
For reasons explained
below, we reject these contentions and deny the petition for review.
Petitioner is a citizen of Ethiopia. She entered the United States without
inspection in August 2001 and two months later filed an application for asylum
and withholding of removal on the basis of political persecution. She alleged she
is a member of the All-Amharic People’s Organization (AAPO), a political group
in which her father held a prominent position. She claimed that in April 2001 she
participated in student demonstrations at Addis Ababa University, after which she
was arrested and detained for twenty days under abusive conditions. Upon her
release, she left the country and illegally entered the United States.
1
As a general matter, to the extent petitioner challenges the summary
procedure as improper per se, her objection is foreclosed by Yuk v. Ashcroft , 355
F.3d 1222, 1232 (10 th Cir. 2004). To the extent she argues that various errors by
the IJ just precluded its application here, “we are able to review the BIA
member’s decision to decide this case under [the streamlined procedure],” but
“[a]s our review of the merits of petitioner’s case will reveal, we find no error in
that decision.” Batalova v. Ashcroft , 355 F.3d 1246, 1253 (10 th Cir. 2004).
-2-
The IJ questioned petitioner about matters she would be expected to know
given her factual allegations. But she was unable to provide, for example, names
of prominent figures in the AAPO and information about the April 2001 student
demonstrations. Citing this problem with her testimony, as well as her lack of
documentation reflecting her membership in the AAPO and attendance at Addis
Ababa University, the IJ concluded that petitioner had failed to demonstrate the
political persecution alleged in support of her requests for relief.
Petitioner appealed to the BIA. In addition to an untimely brief, which the
BIA rejected, she filed a motion to remand to the IJ for consideration of two new
documents she had obtained: a photocopy of what appears to be her Addis Ababa
University identification and an unsworn letter from a North American AAPO
representative confirming her membership. The BIA summarily affirmed the IJ’s
decision without mentioning the remand motion or the attached evidence.
Petitioner claims the BIA erred in affirming the IJ without considering the
new evidence. The BIA “operates as an appellate body and its practice therefore
is not to accept a tender of evidence . . . but instead, if it thinks the new evidence
might change the outcome, to remand the case to the [IJ].” Reyes-Hernandez v.
INS , 89 F.3d 490, 494 (7 th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). A remand will not be
granted, however, unless the evidence “‘was not available and could not have
been discovered or presented at the former hearing.’” Dulane v. INS , 46 F.3d
-3-
988, 994 (10 th Cir. 1995) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 3.2, now 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2)). It
appears petitioner’s new evidence was obtainable from the outset. In any event,
she did not argue otherwise to the BIA. We will not disturb agency action on
grounds inadequately developed in administrative proceedings. Rivera-Zurita v.
INS , 946 F.2d 118, 120 n.2 (10 th Cir. 1991) (“Judicial review does not extend to
points the alien could have made before the [BIA] but did not.”).
Petitioner also contends the BIA denied her due process by failing to accept
her new evidence. “[I]ndividuals subject to deportation are entitled to procedural
due process, which provides an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and
in a meaningful manner.” Woldemeskel v. INS , 257 F.3d 1185, 1192-93 (10 th Cir.
2001) (quotation omitted). Accordingly, the BIA may not categorically deny all
opportunity to supplement the evidentiary record. Ramirez-Alejandre v. Ashcroft ,
320 F.3d 858, 873 ( 9th Cir. 2003). “Of course, the BIA is not obligated to accept
all materials tendered by a party after an immigration hearing. Agencies are
afforded wide latitude in the formulation of administrative procedure. The BIA
may place appropriate restrictions . . . and set standards for relevancy and
admissibility.” Id. at 872-73. The regulation discussed above sets a reasonable
standard for admission of new evidence. Again, in the absence of a properly
developed and preserved argument addressed to this standard, petitioner is not
entitled to relief here.
-4-
Finally, petitioner challenges the IJ’s decision on the merits. In particular,
she takes issue with the IJ’s emphasis on her lack of supporting documentation
and her ignorance of key figures in relevant political activities. Petitioner is in no
position to complain about the IJ’s expectations regarding documentation that
was, in fact, obtainable and should have been offered in support of her claims.
And a review of the hearing transcript undercuts her excuse that she could not
identify the political figures because of mispronunciation/mistranslation of their
names–she was not simply confronted with unfamiliar names, she was unable to
supply names she could be expected to know. We cannot say the IJ’s decision
“was contrary to what a reasonable factfinder would have been compelled to
conclude,” and, hence, we must affirm. Vatulev v. Ashcroft , 354 F.3d 1207, 1211
(10 th Cir. 2003).
The petition for review is DENIED.
Entered for the Court
Stephanie K. Seymour
Circuit Judge
-5-