in the BIA’s decision. The BIA’s decision in this case stated that “the conviction record reflects that the respondent pled guilty to a charge of grand theft of particular items of per sonal property, not labor.” While the BIA elaborated on particular items in the record, “not[ing] in particular ... the transcript of the respondent’s plea colloquy,” the BIA did not dismiss or disregard the other evidence in the record. By referring to the “conviction record,” the BIA sufficiently referenced the record as a whole. The BIA is not required to “expressly parse or refute on the record each individual argument or piece of evidence offered by the petitioner.” Wang v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir.2006); see also Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). “Given the evidence that was before it and
holding that doctrine does not violate due process holding that petitioner did not exhaust his due process claim that he was denied a full and fair hearing by arguing that due process was violated on the ground that the ij admitted uncertified evidence holding that being placed in removal proceedings rather than deportation proceedings does not violate a petitioners due process rights holding that the ij did not violate petitioners due process rights by not discussing each piece of evidence holding that states inadvertent or negligent destruction of evidence did not violate defendants due process rights