Noushani

Although I agree with the majority’s disposition of this case, I feel obliged to point out the IJ’s inappropriate treatment of Noushani during his removal hearing. The record in this case reveals an IJ “whose conduct can aptly be described as intemperate or even abusive and whose work must improve,” in the words of the Attorney General. Memorandum from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to Immigration Judges (Jan. 9, 2006). While Noushani’s failure to present the due process concerns that such treatment raises to the BIA deprives us of the jurisdiction to grant his petition for review on this basis, it does not mean that we are required to ignore the IJ’s unacceptable conduct.

The IJ was aggressive in his questioning of Noushani throughout the hearing, but a few exchanges are particularly troubling. Early in the hearing, when Noushani explained that he applied for his tourist visa via an application submitted by FedEx, the IJ addressed Noushani:

Judge to Mr. Noushani

Q. Sir, other than your self-serving claim that the American Consul requires people to mail in their visas, do you have any evidence that that is the case?

When Noushani responds that “Numerous people apply for a…

MEMORANDUM *

Syed Jawad Wali Noushani petitions for review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his request for asylum and ordering him removed. We have carefully reviewed the record and *756 found that it supports the Immigration Judge’s findings that Noushani lacked credibility. Having so concluded, we need not reach Noushani’s other properly-preserved claims of error. Noushani should have brought his Due Process claims to the BIA’s attention. His failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction to review these claims. See Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779-80 (9th Cir.2001).

Furthermore, there must be an “extraordinary circumstance” to reverse the BIA’s decision not to accept a delinquent brief. See Escobar-Ramos v. INS, 927 F.2d 482, 485 (9th Cir.1991). The clerical error Noushani contends was responsible for the late-filed brief does not constitute an “extraordinary circumstance.”

The petition for review is DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.