Saeng Yu Mah v. Ashcroft

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioners argue that the BIA violated their due-process rights by dismissing their appeal without opinion pursuant to the “streamlined” appeals process of 8 C.F.R. § 3.1 (a)(7). Whether read as a facial challenge to streamlining or as a claim that the particular facts of their case make streamlining inappropriate here, their argument is foreclosed by our opinion in Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft.

Petitioners next argue that it was error for the IJ to reject their claims because of inconsistencies between Mr. Mah’s testimony and his written application for asylum. We interpret this assignment of error (as has the government in its brief) as a challenge to the IJ having made an adverse credibility finding, which led to his discrediting Mr. Mah’s testimony. Petitioners misread the IJ’s decision. After *630 noting the inconsistencies, the IJ said that he “will assume for purposes of argument that [Mr. Mah] has testified in a credible manner in the instant case.” Thus, there is no adverse-credibility determination for us to review.

Next, petitioners assert that the IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal was erroneous. Their argument has two parts: (1) Mr.…