NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 7 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE GUADALUPE MORA REINAGA, No. 15-73411 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-890-772 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submission Deferred November 3, 2020 Submitted May 6, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: NGUYEN, HURWITZ, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Jose Guadalupe Mora Reinaga, a citizen of Mexico subject to a reinstated order of removal, petitions for review of a final order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) concurring with an asylum officer’s negative reasonable fear determination * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31. He argues that the limited reasonable fear procedure outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31 violates due process and that, even if the procedure is valid, the IJ’s decision violated due process, was based on legal errors, and was not supported by substantial evidence. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. 1. Mora Reinaga’s constitutional challenge to the limited reasonable fear screening procedure created by 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31 is foreclosed by Alvarado- Herrera v. Garland, —F.3d—, 2021 WL 1378531 (9th Cir. Apr. 13, 2021), which addressed an identical argument and held that the limited screening procedure is entitled to deference. Id. at *6–7.1 2. The IJ did not commit legal error by excluding the oral testimony of Dr. Thomas Boerman from the review hearing and doing so violated neither due process nor the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and its implementing regulations. The IJ’s task was to review the asylum officer’s determination, not to provide a full hearing or take new evidence. See Alvarado-Herrera, 2021 WL 1378531, at *7 (“[T]he immigration judge . . . review[s] the written record prepared by the first-instance decision-maker (the asylum officer).”). The statute, regulation, and CAT operating procedures do not require the IJ to allow expert 1 The government’s motion to strike unauthorized briefing [ECF No. 99] from Mora Reinaga’s status report [ECF No. 98] is granted. 2 testimony. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1231(b)(3)(A), (C); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g); Exec. Off. of Immigr. Rev., Off. of the Chief Immigr. Judge, Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum No. 99-5: Implementation of Article 3 of the UN Convention Against Torture at 7–8 (May 14, 1999).2 The IJ appropriately considered Dr. Boerman’s expert report, which was in the record before the asylum officer. The regulations upon which Mora Reinaga relies only apply once an applicant passes the limited screening and is given a full hearing. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(3), 1208.31(e), (g)(2)(i). Mora Reinaga was still in the limited screening stage. 3. The IJ’s written and oral determinations, although succinct, provide the “minimum degree of clarity in dispositive reasoning …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals