NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 22 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AURELIO GONZALEZ-ORTEGA, No. 19-70143 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-349-826 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 18, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: BRESS and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and RAYES,*** District Judge. Aurelio Gonzalez Ortega, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of an Immigration * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. Judge (IJ) order denying his claims for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition in part and dismiss in part.1 1. We review de novo Gonzalez Ortega’s claims of due process violations. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). To establish a due process violation in IJ proceedings, a petitioner must show both that the proceeding was “so fundamentally unfair that [he] was prevented from reasonably presenting his case,” and that he was prejudiced, “which means that the outcome of the proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation.” Colmenar v. I.N.S., 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Gonzalez Ortega cannot make this showing. While Gonzalez Ortega argues that the IJ should have used a Huichol interpreter rather than a Spanish interpreter at the hearing, he has not shown that “a better translation would have made a difference in the outcome of the hearing.” Acewicz v. U.S. I.N.S., 984 F.2d 1056, 1063 (9th Cir. 1993). Gonzalez Ortega was able to put forward a declaration describing his version of events, and the BIA assumed Gonzalez Ortega was credible. Gonzalez Ortega has failed to show that any defects in the translation at the hearing “prevented him from presenting relevant 1 Gonzalez Ortega originally also sought asylum but abandoned that claim before the BIA. We thus do not consider it here. 2 evidence,” id., or otherwise “prejudiced the outcome of the hearing,” Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). Additionally, the record does not support Gonzalez Ortega’s contention that the IJ failed to consider his expert testimony. The IJ performed a detailed review of the expert testimony, accorded it full evidentiary weight, and analyzed it in the context of Gonzalez Ortega’s particular circumstances. The BIA also did not violate due process by considering the facts set forth in a 2013 probation report. Gonzalez Ortega’s counsel did not object to admission of the report at the hearing, and the record shows that …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals