United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1799 ___________________________ Damaris Yeneseika Pineda Pineda; Allison Noamy Segura-Pineda lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: May 17, 2018 Filed: July 13, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Guatemalan citizens Damaris Pineda Pineda and her daughter Allison Segura- Pineda (collectively, the Pinedas) petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) dismissal of their administrative appeal in which they alleged a violation of their due process rights. We deny their petition for review. I. Background The Pinedas entered the United States without valid entry documents in May 2014. When removal proceedings were initiated against them, they admitted they were removable, but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 At the administrative hearing, Damaris testified about her political affiliations and extensive experience campaigning for various local Guatemalan officials. During Damaris’s testimony, the immigration judge interrupted her to ask, “When are we going to get to the persecution in this case? We’ve been at this for about an hour and a half now and we haven’t once talked about anything bad happening to [Damaris]. . . . [L]et’s get to it.” Damaris then testified that Roberto Garcia Pineda, for whom she had campaigned previously, asked her to work on another campaign for him, but she declined. She claimed that Garcia Pineda threatened to kill her at gunpoint, that his associates started extorting money from her and shooting at her house at night, and that, three and a half years later, she and Allison fled to the United States. The government then cross-examined Damaris, the immigration judge questioned her, and she provided additional testimony on redirect. The immigration judge denied asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, finding Damaris’s testimony not credible after identifying several inconsistencies. The Pinedas appealed to the BIA, arguing that the immigration judge had violated their due process rights by limiting Damaris’s hearing testimony. More specifically, they contended that the immigration judge had started the hearing more than an hour after it was scheduled to begin, “rushed the proceeding by directing [their] counsel to jump ahead in the testimony,” and thereby “excessively limited key facts and 1 Allison’s asylum claim is derivative of Damaris’s. -2- testimony.” The BIA dismissed the appeal, reasoning that the immigration judge’s “overall conduct and questioning was within proper judicial bounds.” II. Discussion “In removal proceedings, the Due Process Clause entitles an alien to a fair hearing.” Zacarias-Velasquez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 429, 434 (8th Cir. 2007). “To establish a due process violation in a removal hearing, an alien must demonstrate both a fundamental procedural error and prejudice.” Alva-Arellano v. Lynch, 811 F.3d 1064, 1066 (8th Cir. 2016). We review due process claims in immigration proceedings de novo. Zacarias-Velasquez, 509 F.3d at 435. “We review the BIA’s decision, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals