FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TOMAS BARTOLOME, AKA T.B.H., No. 15-71666 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A074-826-493 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. THOMAS BARTOLIMAE-HERNANDEZ, No. 15-72671 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A074-826-493 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, OPINION Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Immigration Judge’s Decision Argued and Submitted February 15, 2018 San Francisco, California Filed September 14, 2018 2 BARTOLOME V. SESSIONS Before: Carlos T. Bea and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges, and David C. Nye,* District Judge. Opinion by Judge N.R. Smith SUMMARY** Immigration The panel denied Tomas Bartolome’s petition for review of an immigration judge’s decision affirming an asylum officer’s negative reasonable fear determination in reinstatement removal proceedings, and granted and remanded his petition for review of the immigration judge’s rejection for lack of jurisdiction of his motion to reopen reasonable fear proceedings. The panel rejected Bartolome’s contention that the asylum officer deprived him of due process by providing him a Spanish-language interpreter, rather than an interpreter in his native language Chuj, because Bartolome advised the asylum officer that he understood “a lot” of Spanish, did not indicate that he had problems understanding the interpreter, stated that the asylum officer’s summary of his testimony was correct, and had an opportunity to correct any errors or submit additional evidence on review before the IJ. * The Honorable David C. Nye, United States District Judge for the District of Idaho, sitting by designation. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. BARTOLOME V. SESSIONS 3 The panel also rejected Bartolome’s argument that the IJ deprived him of due process, concluding that the IJ gave Bartolome sufficient time to prepare for his hearing and submit evidence, and adequately considered Bartolome’s testimony and the evidence he submitted both to the asylum officer and the IJ. The panel noted that reasonable fear review proceedings are expedited and not full evidentiary hearings, and IJs are not required to provide detailed decisions outlining all the claims raised by the alien. The panel also rejected Bartolome’s claim of IJ bias. The panel held that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s determination that Bartolome failed to demonstrate a reasonable fear of persecution, due to the lack of nexus between any harm and a protected ground, or a reasonable fear of torture. The panel held that the IJ abused his discretion in denying on jurisdictional grounds Bartolome’s motion to reopen because the IJ failed to recognize that he had at least sua sponte jurisdiction to reopen proceedings. The panel remanded for the IJ to exercise discretion whether to grant reopening. 4 BARTOLOME V. SESSIONS COUNSEL Siovhan Sheridan (argued), Sheridan Law Office P.C., Tucson, Arizona, for Petitioner. Nancy K. Canter (argued), Trial Attorney; Keith I. McManus and Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Directors; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent. OPINION N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judge: Aliens ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals