Jose Galdamez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, sought review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA had dismissed Galdamez's appeal from an Immigration Judge's decision that denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In its decision, the BIA utilized a streamlining procedure to affirm the Immigration Judge's ruling without issuing a written opinion. Galdamez challenged this process, arguing it denied him due process and that the BIA acted arbitrarily and capriciously. Additionally, he attempted to challenge the underlying denial of his relief claims.
The panel addressed two primary issues. First, regarding the due process claim, the court found Galdamez's argument without merit. The BIA's use of the streamlining procedure complied with the applicable regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4). The court reiterated established precedent that it is not a due process violation for the BIA to affirm an Immigration Judge's decision without issuing an opinion, citing Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft. Second, the court addressed the merits of Galdamez's challenges to the denial of his asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims. The court held that Galdamez had forfeited these challenges because he failed to raise any arguments on those specific issues in his opening brief. The court noted that arguments omitted from the opening brief are usually deemed forfeited. Even construing the brief liberally, it contained no contentions or reasons supported by citations to authorities or the record as required by Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A).
The petition for review is denied, and the removal order against Jose Galdamez remains in effect. The decision reinforces the strict requirement that appellants must raise all arguments in their opening brief to avoid forfeiture. It also confirms that the BIA's streamlining practice of affirming without opinion remains a valid and constitutionally sound method of resolving immigration appeals in the Ninth Circuit.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download