Romano Latagan Omalin v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272 4th Cir. 2004 . In Blanco de Belbruno, we held that “the…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1526
ROMANO LATAGAN OMALIN,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A72-349-382)
Submitted: March 25, 2005 Decided: April 12, 2005
Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Romano Latagan Omalin, Petitioner Pro Se. M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,
Victor Matthew Lawrence, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Romano Latagan Omalin, a native and citizen of the
Philippines, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the
immigration judge’s denial of his application for a waiver of
inadmissibility pursuant to § 212(i) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (“INA”), as codified at 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(i) (West
1999 & Supp. 2004), and the immigration judge’s denial of his
application for adjustment of status.
The Attorney General previously filed a motion to dismiss
the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Because we
agreed that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the immigration
judge’s denial of Omalin’s application for a § 212(i) waiver, we
granted the motion to dismiss to the extent that Omalin’s petition
challenged this denial. We now address the remaining issues raised
in Omalin’s petition.
Omalin first contends that the Board’s use of the summary
affirmance procedure as set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2004)
violated his rights under the Due Process Clause. This argument,
however, has been squarely rejected by our decision in Blanco de
Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272 (4th Cir. 2004). In Blanco de
Belbruno, we held that “the [Board]’s streamlining regulations do
not violate an alien’s rights to due process of law under the Fifth

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
Amendment.” Id. at 283. Accordingly, Omalin is not entitled to
relief on this claim.
Omalin also argues that the immigration judge’s comments
regarding the presence of his young child at his immigration
hearing evidenced such a bias on the part of the immigration judge
as to violate his right to due process of law. Because the remarks
of the immigration judge fall well short of displaying a
“deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment
impossible,” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994), we
find that Omalin has failed to show judicial bias and therefore
cannot establish a violation of his due process rights.
We therefore deny the petition for review. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --