Dicdican v. Ashcroft
Docket: No. 02-71343
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; June 23, 2004; Federal Appellate Court
Petitioners Hilario Villaniso Dicdican and Crispina Tibon Dicdican, citizens of the Philippines, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order that affirmed the Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of their cancellation of removal applications. The court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and reviews due process claims de novo. The petition is partially dismissed and partially denied. The court finds that the petitioners’ claim regarding the BIA's streamlining process obstructing their right to appeal is precluded by precedent set in Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft. Additionally, their argument that the BIA failed to remand the case to the IJ to apply the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard is similarly barred by Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft and does not constitute a valid due process challenge. The petitioners’ assertion of judicial misconduct by the IJ is also rejected, as they did not demonstrate the necessary prejudice to support a due process claim, consistent with Lata v. INS. The court emphasizes that to succeed on a due process challenge, a petitioner must show that the alleged violation impacted the outcome of the proceedings, as highlighted in Garcia v. Ashcroft. Lastly, the petitioners’ motion for a stay of voluntary departure, filed on October 2, 2003, is denied as untimely. The overall petition for review is dismissed in part and denied in part, and the disposition is not intended for publication or citation except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.