game.” NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759, 766 n.6, 89 S.Ct. 1426, 22 L.Ed.2d 709 (1969). Remand in this case is not required because it “would be an idle and useless formality.” Id. Petitioner’s argument for relief turns on the existence of endemic corruption such that Mexican officials could not or would not protect him, but the record indicates no such corruption on the part of the police who have interacted with Petitioner’s family (and affirmatively suggests that they acted in accordance with the law). The BIA’s error is harmless because “nothing in the record could support a finding” that Petitioner qualifies for deferral of removal under CAT. Khudaverdyan v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1101, 1107 n.3 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Li Hua Yuan v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 642 F.3d 420 (3d Cir. 2011) (<HOLDING>)). I respectfully
holding that bia error is harmless when it is highly probable that error did not affect cases outcome holding that an error is harmless where it is highly probably that the error did not affect the outcome of the case holding that sentencing error is harmless if the error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding that noneonstitutional errors in civil suits are harmless only if it is highly probable that the errors did not affect the outcome of the case