Albathani v. INS

holding that the BIA’s “affirmance without opinion” procedure does not violate due process | holding that, so long as a rational basis was set forth in some stage of agency proceedings, the BIA may affirm IJ decisions without an opinion | stating that an unadmitted alien present in the United States has only "limited" due process rights | stating that an unadmitted alien present in the United States has only “limited” due process rights | holding that the BIA’s “affirmance without opinion” procedure does not violate due process | noting that Chenery only requires the relevant agency, here the INS, to give reasons for its decisions, which may issue from either the BIA or an IJ | noting that “[t]he summary affirmance scheme does create ... problems [for review], but they do not render the scheme a violation of due process or render judicial review impossible” | suggesting that summary affirmance by the BIA does not “establish that the required review is not taking place” | stating that an unadmitted alien present in the United States has only “limited” due process rights | noting that “[t]he summary affirmance scheme does create ... problems [for review], but they do not render the scheme a violation of due process or render judicial review impossible” | “[I]f the BIA does not independently state a correct ground for affirmance in a case in which the reasoning proffered by the IJ is faulty, the BIA risks reversal on appeal.” | "[I]f the BIA does not independently state a correct ground for affirmance in a case in which the reasoning proffered by the IJ is faulty, the BIA risks reversal on appeal." | the two alleged incidents of persecution “may well have been, as the IJ suggested, nothing more than the robbery of someone driving a Mercedes with cash in his pocket” | “We are not willing, however, in the absence of [ ] evidence [of systemic violation by the BIA of its regulations] to infer ... that the required review is not taking place.” | “An alien has no constitutional right to any administrative appeal at all.” | "An alien has no constitutional right to any administrative appeal at all." | “As an unadmitted alien present in the United States, Albathani’s due process rights are limited” | “As an unadmitted alien present in the United States, Albathani’s due process rights are limited” | “An alien has no constitutional right to any administrative appeal at all.” | “[I]f the BIA does not independently state a correct ground for affirmance in a case in which the reasoning proffered by the IJ is faulty, the BIA risks reversal on appeal.” | “An alien has no constitutional right to any administrative appeal at all.” | BIA summary affirmance does not “establish that the required review is not taking place” | “[A]dministrative appeal rights as exist are created by regulations promulgated by the Attorney General.” | summary affirmance scheme does not violate due process or rules of administrative law | "We are not willing ... in the absence of [] evidence [of systemic violation by the BIA of its regulations] to infer ... that the required review is not taking place.” (alterations in original) | “An alien has no constitutional right to any administrative appeal at all.” | “[I]f the BIA does not independently state a correct ground for affirmance in a case in which the reasoning proffered by the IJ is faulty, the BIA risks reversal on appeal.” (citing SEC v. Chenery Corp. (Chenery II), 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947)) | withholding standard stricter than asylum standard | rejecting a due process challenge

          United States Court of Appeals
                      For the First Circuit


No. 02-1541

                     MARWAN YOUSSEF ALBATHANI,

                            Petitioner,

                                v.

              IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

                            Respondent.


                           ERRATA SHEET

     The opinion of this Court issued on February 6, 2003 is
amended as follows:

     Replace the first sentence of the last paragraph on page 26,
ending on page 27, line 1, with the following:

     In fact, based on our review, the record of the hearing
itself could not be reviewed in ten minutes.