FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 17 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAQUELYN ANDRADE DE No. 22-327 CHAVEZ; RONALD STEVEN ANDRADE CHAVEZ, Agency Nos. A206-888-534 Petitioners, A206-888-535 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted May 10, 2023 Seattle, Washington Before: HAWKINS, W. FLETCHER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Jaquelyn Andrade de Chavez (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).1 On January 4, 2015, she entered the United States without inspection. She was issued a notice to appear on January 13, 2015, charging her as removable. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 1 Petitioner’s application also included her minor child as a derivative, and he is also a petitioner in this case. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) determined she was removable. Petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) protection. The IJ found that Petitioner was not credible because her testimony before him differed from her credible fear interview2 and from her asylum application. The IJ concluded that it was “highly likely that the [Petitioner] introduced new allegations of persecution for the purpose of strengthening her asylum claim.” Accordingly, the IJ denied her applications. The BIA, through a Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge, affirmed. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. When the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ and expresses no disagreement with the IJ, while citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), “we review the IJ’s order as if it were the BIA’s.” Chuen Piu Kwong v. Holder, 671 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2011). We review questions of law, including whether the BIA acted within its regulatory authority, de novo. Ridore v. Holder, 696 F.3d 907, 911 (9th Cir. 2012). Adverse 2 Both the IJ and BIA incorrectly refer to Petitioner’s credible fear interview as an asylum interview. A credible fear interview is different from an asylum interview. Compare 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.30(d), 208.31(c) (credible fear interview), with 8 C.F.R. § 208.9 (asylum interview). Petitioner fails to allege that this was harmful error. For accuracy, this disposition will correctly refer to the interview as a credible fear interview. 2 credibility findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1268–69 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition. First, Petitioner contends that the BIA’s decision is void because the Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge that issued the BIA’s decision had been appointed to two consecutive six-month terms, which Petitioner alleges contravenes agency regulations. Agencies are required to follow their own procedures. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 266 (1954). But a party must make a “showing of substantial prejudice” due to the agency’s violation of its regulations …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals