Santiago Fernandez-Vergara v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States

*The Honorable Arthur L. Alarcón, Senior Judge, United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 02-4399
____________
SANTIAGO FERNANDEZ-VERGARA,
Petitioner
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
____________
On Petition for Review from an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Board No. A70-683-693)
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 28, 2004
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, FISHER and ALARCÓN,* Circuit Judges.
(Filed: June 4, 2004)
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
FISHER, Circuit Judge.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Petitioner Santiago Fernandez-Vergara, a citizen of Peru, seeks review of the order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming an immigration
judge’s denial of his applications for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) and for
withholding of deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3).
Petitioner argues that his eligibility should be measured by conditions as they
existed in Peru when he filed his asylum application in 1993 and not in 2001 when his
hearing took place. Petitioner cites no authority for this proposition and we are aware of
none. The immigration judge’s conclusions that conditions in Peru had changed for the
better and that the applications should be denied were supported by substantial evidence.
Petitioner’s related argument – that delay in providing a hearing should estop the
government – is similarly misplaced. That the government erroneously sent several
letters to Petitioner’s old address is not affirmative misconduct and does not estop
enforcement of the immigration laws. INS v. Miranda, 459 U.S. 14, 18 (1982).
Petitioner also attacks the BIA’s summary affirmance procedures as violative of
due process. This argument has been foreclosed by Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228 (3d
Cir. 2003), where we concluded that “the streamlining regulations do not violate the Due
Process Clause of the Constitution.” Id. at 238.
As Petitioner’s remaining arguments are without merit, the petition for review will
be DISMISSED.
________________________

-- 2 of 3 --

3

-- 3 of 3 --