Antonio Roblero-Morales v. Dana Boente, 677 F. App'x 849

Petitioner Antonio Roblero-Morales, a Guatemalan national, was apprehended entering the U.S. unlawfully and conceded removability but sought asylum, withholding, and CAT protection.
Roblero alleged he fled Guatemala because gangs extorted him, threatened him with forced recruitment, and later kidnapped and beat him in Mexico. He testified gangs never physically harmed him in Guatemala but he feared death based on others’ experiences.
At a pretrial hearing Roblero asked to amend page 5 of his asylum application to state he fled because gangs threatened to kill him; the IJ allowed additional testimony but did not formally permit the amendment.
At the merits hearing the IJ found Roblero credible but denied asylum, concluding extortion/forced recruitment did not show nexus to a protected ground (e.g., race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group). Other relief was also denied.
The BIA affirmed, holding Roblero had a full opportunity to present his claim and showed no prejudice from not being allowed to amend the application. Roblero petitioned for review arguing procedural due process violations (denial to amend and IJ prejudgment).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether IJ’s refusal to allow amendment of asylum application violated due process	Roblero: denial prevented development of full record and showing of nexus to a protected ground	Gov: IJ allowed Roblero to testify; no evidence withheld and no prejudice	Denied — IJ’s open questions gave opportunity to present claim and Roblero showed no prejudice
Whether IJ prejudged the case (bias/foreclosed outcome)	Roblero: IJ’s comment that his case was "not very strong" and remarks about gangs show bias	Gov: IJ’s remark reflected legal assessment; denial grounded in law (lack of nexus), not bias	Denied — record shows legal conclusion, not prejudgment affecting outcome

Singh v. Holder, 699 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 2012) (standard of de novo review for due process claims in immigration context)
Martinez v. Holder, 740 F.3d 902 (4th Cir. 2014) (reviewing both BIA and IJ where BIA adopts IJ reasoning)
Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2008) (due process requires showing proceedings were fundamentally unfair and that error prejudiced outcome)
Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2002) ("meaningful opportunity to present" claim does not impose an obligation to ensure a meaningful presentation; prejudice standard)
Zelaya v. Holder, 668 F.3d 159 (4th Cir. 2012) (evaluating whether a proposed social group qualifies under the INA)