A042 271 032The Board reviews questions
law, discretion, and judgment and all other issues in an appeal
immigration Judge's decision de novo.
1003.1(d)(3)(ii).The respondent does not dispute that he freely admitted that he was convicted
violence" and a "theft" aggravated felony, on account
the 2009 Pennsylvania convictionsalleged
the Notice to Appear (form I-862) ("NTA"), and that his admissions support theImmigration Judge's findings as
his removability (Tr.at 2-3).
Theonly issue raised on appealis a due process challenge to the Immigration Judge's conduct
theseproceedings.However, contrary to the respondent's appellate contentions, we find that the ImmigrationJudge's actions were consistent with a fair hearing, and find no support for the respondent's claimsas to a denial
due process.In the context
immigration hearing,due process requires thataliens threatened with removal are provided the right to a full and fair hearing that allows them areasonable opportunity to present evidence on their behalf.
Castro v.Attorney General
671 F.3d 356 (3d Cir. 2006);
see also Cabrera-Perez v.Gonzales,
456 F.3d 109,
(3d Cir.2006) (citing
330 F.3d 587, 596 (3d Cir. 2003))."The fundamentalrequirement
due process is the opportunity to
heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningfulmanner."
239 F.3d 542, 549 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting
424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976)).In order to prevail
due process claim, the respondentmust establish that defects in the deportation proceeding violated his due-process rights and that hesuffered prejudice as a result
see also Wilson
350 F.3d 377,
(3d Cir.2003) (finding "no dueprocess violation in the absence
prejudice."). Although the respondent need not conclusivelydemonstrate that he would have received relief to show prejudice, he must show that there were"plausible grounds for relief."
585 F.3d 1191, 1196(9
Cir. 2009). The respondent has not met that burden.Under the regulations,the Immigration Judge has a duty to inform an alien
relief in removal proceedings only where the circumstances
the case reasonably reflect thealien's "apparent eligibility" for the particular form
relief at issue, 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(a)(2), orwhere the alien expresses a fear
persecution or harm upon return to any
the countries to whichthe alien may be removed, 8 C.F.R.
1240.1l(c)(1). However, in the matter before us, therespondent has not shown the Immigration Judge failed to comply with his duty
the regulations, where the respondent not only failed to express a fear
persecution orharm upon return to the Dominican Republic, but also having been convicted
two aggravatedfelony offenses, failed
establish his eligibility for any relief or protection from removal.The respondent bears the exclusive burden
proving all requisite facts pertinent
hiseligibility for relief from removal. 8 C.F.R.
1240.8(d).Furthermore, where the evidenceindicates that a ground for mandatory denial
an application for relief
apply, the alien has theburden
demonstrating by a preponderance
the evidence that such grounds do not apply(emphasis added).
The respondent cannot show the "substantial prejudice" required for asuccessful due process challenge.
483 F.3d 184, 192(3d Cir.2007) (citing
432 F.3d 533,
(3d Cir.2006)).To this day, the
respondent has yet
offer any argument or evidence sufficient to establish his eligibility for anyrelief or protection from removal.
Cite as: Anthony Olivo Cosme, A042 271 032 (BIA Feb. 27, 2013)