NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 1 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VIRGINIO GARCIA-HERNANDEZ, No. 21-70181 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-917-507 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted January 10, 2022 Pasadena, California Before: TASHIMA, M. SMITH, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Dissent by Judge WATFORD. Petitioner Virginio Garcia-Hernandez appeals from an immigration judge’s (IJ) order concluding that he was not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. The IJ’s order was issued after a reasonable fear review hearing where Garcia- Hernandez testified. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31. The IJ agreed with an asylum officer’s (AO) determination that Garcia-Hernandez had failed to demonstrate a reasonable * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. fear of persecution or torture should he be removed to Mexico. On appeal, Garcia- Hernandez argues that his due process rights were violated because he was not provided with adequate translation services or the right to an attorney at the reasonable fear review hearing. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). See Ayala v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2017). We deny the petition for review. 1. The parties’ familiarity with the record is assumed. Garcia-Hernandez claims that he was deprived of his due process right to have competent translation in a language he understood at his hearing. See Perez-Lastor v. INS, 208 F.3d 773, 778 (9th Cir. 2000). However, he has failed to make the necessary showing that he was prejudiced by any translation defects. See, e.g., Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner must show “that defects in translation prejudiced the outcome of the hearing”). The IJ rescheduled Garcia-Hernandez’s hearing date so that an interpreter for his native language, Mixteco, could be found. He also called a Spanish translator to serve as a backup when the Mixteco interpreter indicated she was having some problems understanding Garcia-Hernandez’s specific dialect. While the language services provided to Garcia-Hernandez were not perfect, the record shows that the IJ and interpreters were responsive to translation issues as they arose and made diligent efforts to resolve them. See Kotasz v. INS, 31 F.3d 847, 850 n.2 (9th Cir. 1994). Ultimately, there was only a single word that the interpreters 2 were unable to translate, and despite this problem, Garcia-Hernandez was still able to communicate with the help of the Spanish interpreter that he had been forced to fight in a land dispute. All in all, Garcia-Hernandez was “given a fair opportunity to relate [his] version of events,” and the record does not show that translation problems “influenced the outcome of the proceedings.” Id. 2. We also deny Garcia-Hernandez’s right-to-counsel claim because we conclude that he failed to avail himself of the opportunity he was given to retain counsel. As a preliminary matter, we …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals