Zangiat v. Ashcroft , 102 F. App'x 774 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2383
MARY NEIHSUNG ZANGIAT,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-226-761)
Submitted: May 19, 2004 Decided: July 7, 2004
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yousof W. Nesari, LAW OFFICE OF J. W. NESARI, L.L.C., Herndon,
Virginia, for Appellant. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Carolyn M. Piccotti,
Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mary Neihsung Zangiat petitions this court for review of
a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board). The Board
affirmed the action of the immigration judge in pretermitting
Zangiat’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture, with respect to Burma.
Zangiat lived in India from 1988 to 2001, and entered this country
in 2001 with an Indian passport. She offered no documentary
evidence of her Burmese citizenship. Thus, the Board held that the
immigration judge did not err in pretermitting the applications.
Zangiat complains that she was denied due process when
the immigration judge stopped the hearing without taking her
testimony. Removal and asylum hearings are subject to the
constraints of procedural due process. Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316,
320 (4th Cir. 2002). To prevail on a claim of denial of due
process at an asylum hearing, the alien must show that any such
denial resulted in prejudice. Gandarillas-Zambrana v. Bd. of
Immigration Appeals, 44 F.3d 1251, 1256-57 (4th Cir. 1995).
Prejudice may be found only when the due process violation “‘is
likely to impact the results of the proceeding.’” Rusu, 296 F.3d
at 320 (quoting Jacinto v. INS, 208 F.3d 725, 728 (9th Cir. 2000)).
This court reviews claims of due process violations de novo.
Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272, 278 (4th Cir. 2004).
- 2 -
Zangiat had many months to obtain documents establishing
her Burmese nationality and citizenship, but offered nothing, and
still refers to no such proof. Therefore, even if the actions of
the immigration judge as affirmed by the Board denied Zangiat due
process, she cannot establish the prejudice necessary to entitle
her to relief.
We deny Zangiat’s petition for review. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -