Summary
The Sixth Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part Efra Samba Deh’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ refusal to reopen his removal proceedings. The court held that Deh failed to identify specific interpreter errors or show that alleged translation problems materially affected the adverse credibility determination or violated due process. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction his challenge to the agency’s refusal to sua sponte reopen the proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the agency abused its discretion by denying Deh's motion to reopen based on the later disqualification of the interpreter at his third immigration hearing.
- Whether allegedly inaccurate interpretation deprived Deh of due process by preventing him from reasonably presenting his case and affecting the outcome of the removal proceedings.
- Whether the court had jurisdiction to review the Board's refusal to reopen the proceedings sua sponte based on the Board's use of the phrase "exceptional circumstances" rather than "exceptional situations."
Holdings
- The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because Deh failed to identify specific interpretation errors or other material evidence likely to change the outcome of the proceedings.
- Deh's hearing did not violate due process because he failed to show that the immigration judge knew of an interpretation problem during the proceedings, failed to identify specific interpretation errors, and failed to show that any alleged defect affected the outcome.
- The court lacked jurisdiction to review the Board's refusal to reopen the proceedings sua sponte, and Deh did not present a cognizable legal-standard challenge that could bring the claim within any recognized exception.
Key quotations
“Evidence qualifies as “material” if it would “likely . . . change the result in the case” if the proceedings were reopened.” (at 4)
“Proceedings violate the Due Process Clause only when they are “so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his case.”” (at 6)
“So Deh must first make a threshold showing that “the judge knew that the interpreter could not accurately translate the alien’s testimony and never corrected the problem.”” (at 7)
“We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.” (at 8)
Factual background
Efra Deh, a Mauritanian national, entered the United States without valid entry documents and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection based on alleged slavery, persecution, and torture in Mauritania. He testified at three immigration hearings through different Fulani interpreters, but his testimony conflicted with his asylum application and other evidence regarding his residence, treatment, and alleged arrests. After the immigration judge found him not credible, Deh moved to reopen when the interpreter from his third hearing was later disqualified, alleging difficulty understanding the interpreter but identifying no specific mistranslations or omissions.
Procedural history
An immigration judge denied Deh's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection after finding him not credible. Deh did not appeal that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals; instead, he moved to reopen based on the later disqualification of an interpreter used at his third hearing. The immigration judge denied reopening, and the Board affirmed and declined to reopen sua sponte. The Sixth Circuit denied the petition in part and dismissed the sua-sponte-reopening claim for lack of jurisdiction.