NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 18 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RIAD ABDULKADIR AYMO, No. 17-71159 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-311-853 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted June 5, 2018 Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and CHHABRIA,** District Judge. Riad Abdulkadir Aymo (“Aymo”), an Ethiopian citizen who is ethnically Oromo, petitions for review of the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Specifically, he * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Vince Chhabria, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) adverse credibility determination. He also argues that his due process rights were violated by incompetent translation during his removal hearing and by the IJ’s failure to consider the totality of the evidence. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We conclude that Aymo’s removal hearing did not satisfy the requirements of due process based on incompetent translation. Accordingly, we grant the petition and remand for a new hearing. 1. The Due Process Clause applies to removal hearings and requires that a petitioner receive a full and fair hearing. Perez-Lastor v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 773, 777 (9th Cir. 2000). A full and fair hearing includes competent translation when the petitioner does not speak English. Id. at 777–78. We have held that a petitioner did not receive due process where incompetent translation caused the agency to find his testimony not credible. Id. To find a due process violation, we must find that Aymo exhausted this claim before the BIA, that he received incompetent translation, and that the incompetent translation prejudiced the outcome of his case. Id. 2. We first conclude that Aymo exhausted his due process claim. “[W]e do not employ the exhaustion doctrine in a formalistic manner, but rather inquire into whether the issue was before the BIA such that it had the opportunity to correct [the] error.” Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 492 (9th Cir. 2008). Moreover, we construe pro se claims liberally for purposes of exhaustion. Ren v. Holder, 648 2 F.3d 1079, 1083 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Agyeman v. I.N.S., 296 F.3d 871, 878 (9th Cir. 2002)). Thus, “a pro se petitioner is not required to use [] precise legal terminology.” Id. at 1084. Although Aymo did not use the exact legalese, “due process violation,” he emphasized in his pro se brief to the BIA that he “testified honestly and truthfully before the court,” “answered over 400 questions that the Immigration Judge and department attorney asked him,” and “was asked the same questions multiple times and he answered the same each and every time. Court transcripts would prove ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals