The Board of Immigration Appeals has denied a motion to reopen built on allegations that the respondent's hearing was tainted by improper influence over the Immigration Judge, expedited handling, and systemic bias stemming from the Board's recent reorganization. The Board called the claims "conspiracy theories and innuendo" unsupported by credible evidence, rejecting a newspaper article and supporting affidavits as insufficient because the article consisted largely of anonymously-sourced opinion and none of the affiants had firsthand knowledge of the Board's internal deliberations.
The Board held that expedited case processing does not itself suggest prejudgment, that recusals from decisions about whether to publish a ruling as precedent have no bearing on the outcome of the underlying case, and that the reduction of the Board from 28 to 15 members — which nearly tripled the annual output of published decisions — reflects efficiency rather than compromised independence. Citing Liteky v. United States, the Board reiterated that adverse rulings alone, including an unfavorable venue determination or a discretionary denial of a statutory waiver, do not establish bias.
The full text of Matter of M-K- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1462911/dl?inline