Case: 18-10036 Date Filed: 08/20/2018 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-10036 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A208-195-478 ZENAIDA OROZCO CRUZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (August 20, 2018) Before WILSON, JORDAN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-10036 Date Filed: 08/20/2018 Page: 2 of 8 Zenaida Orozco Cruz seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 208(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A), and denying Orozco’s request for a new hearing before a different IJ. On appeal, Orozco argues that the IJ abused his discretion by continuing her case for three months as opposed to four due to maternity leave. Orozco also argues that the IJ’s demeanor and interruptions at trial denied her due process of the law. Finally, Orozco contends that BIA failed to properly analyze her asylum claim, which led to the eventual denial of her application. I. The IJ’s decision to deny the petitioner’s motion for a continuance is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Zafar v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 461 F.3d 1357, 1362 (11th Cir. 2006). The grant of a continuance is within the IJ’s broad discretion, and an IJ may grant a continuance for “good cause shown.” Id.; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29. According to BIA precedent, “an immigration judge’s decision denying [a] motion for continuance will not be reversed unless the alien establishes that [the] denial caused h[er] actual prejudice and harm and materially affected the outcome of h[er] case.” In re Sibrun, 18 I. & N. Dec. 354, 356–57 (BIA 1983). 2 Case: 18-10036 Date Filed: 08/20/2018 Page: 3 of 8 Here, we need not address whether the IJ abused its broad discretion, because Orozco has failed to show actual prejudice. Zafar, 461 F.3d at 1362; In re Sibrun, 18 I. & N. Dec. at 356–57. II. The Fifth Amendment entitles petitioners in removal proceedings to due process of law. Lapaix v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 1138, 1143 (11th Cir. 2010). Due process requires that an alien be given notice and an opportunity to be heard in their removal proceedings. Tang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 578 F.3d 1270, 1275 (11th Cir. 2009). To establish a due process violation, the petitioner must show that she was deprived of liberty without due process of the law and that the errors caused her substantial prejudice. Lapaix, 605 F.3d at 1143. “To show substantial prejudice, an alien must demonstrate that, in the absence of the alleged violations, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. The respondent in an immigration proceeding should expect dignity, respect, courtesy, and fairness in a hearing before an IJ. In re Y-S-L-C-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 688, 690 (BIA 2015). Conduct by the IJ that can be perceived as bullying ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals