attribute political opinions to him. With respect to both grounds for withholding of removal, the IJ also held that Mr. Tariq had failed to demonstrate that the government of Pakistan was unwilling or unable to protect him. Mr. Tariq advances no argument to refute these conclusions. Moreover, the record supports the IJ’s findings. Accordingly, we must hold that his decision to deny Mr. Tariq withholding of removal was supported by substantial evidence. C. Mr. Tariq asserts that the BIA erred in failing to address his motion to supplement the record on appeal. The Government concedes that it was error for the BIA to fail to address this motion. However, we shall not reverse the decision of the BIA if an error is harmless. Cf. Pronsivakulchai v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 903, 907 (7th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Before the IJ, the Government had introduced
holding that to prevail on a claim that an immigration hearing was procedurally insufficient the petitioner must demonstrate prejudice holding that an alien must show error and substantial prejudice in order to prevail on a due process claim holding that a petitioner must show prejudice in order to prevail on a claim that he or she was denied a full and fair hearing in violation of due process holding petitioner must demonstrate error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim holding petitioner must show prejudice to prevail on due process claim