future persecution. Regarding petitioners’ third claim — that the BIA failed to adhere to one of its prior unpublished decisions — this apparent inconsistency is of no moment because unpublished opinions of the BIA have no precedential value. Douglas v. INS, 28 F.3d 241, 245 (2d Cir.1994). The record before us indicates that petitioners have alleged no more than that they are part of the general population of ethnic Albanians and that some ethnic Albanian civilians have been mistreated in Macedonia. In ir.1991) (same) with de la Llana-Castellon v. INS, 16 F.3d 1093, 1099-1100 (10th Cir.1994) (requiring that a “petitioner be given notice and an opportunity to rebut” facts of which the BIA has taken administrative notice) and Castillo-Villagra v. INS, 972 F.2d 1017, 1029 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). In the circumstances presented, we are
holding that the bia violated the fifth amendments due process clause in taking notice of the change of government without providing the petitioners an opportunity to rebut the noticed facts holding school boards are persons within the meaning of the fifth amendment due process clause holding that availability of motions to reopen satisfies the due process requirement that petitioners be allowed to rebut facts of which the bia takes administrative notice holding that the due process clause of the fifth amendment requires that petitioners be allowed an opportunity to rebut officially noticed facts particularly when  those facts are crucial to  the outcome of the administrative proceeding holding that the fifth amendment right against selfincrimination was not prejudiced by a prior administrative proceeding based on the same facts