NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 27 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YANI LEDEZMA-PAZ, No. 20-71156 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-200-554 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted July 27, 2021 Withdrawn from Submission July 30, 2021 Resubmitted September 23, 2021 Pasadena, California Before: M. SMITH and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and ROBRENO,** District Judge. Yani Ledezma-Paz, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. withholding of removal and for protection from removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law, including due process claims, de novo. Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Lopez v. INS, 184 F.3d 1097, 1099 (9th Cir. 1999)). We review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, under the substantial evidence standard. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010)). We grant the petition for review and we remand. 1. Petitioner was not deprived of due process based on improper translation because none of the identified translation errors caused him prejudice. See Gutierrez-Chavez v. INS, 298 F.3d 824, 830 (9th Cir. 2002) (“To make out a violation of due process as the result of an inadequate translation, [the petitioner] must demonstrate that a better translation likely would have made a difference in the outcome.”) (citing Acewicz v. INS, 984 F.3d 1056, 1063 (9th Cir. 1993)). The majority of the translation errors identified were clarified on cross-examination. As to the ones that were not, Petitioner alleges that the interpreter failed to translate his testimony that the military police whipped and threw him on December 20. The transcript states that the military police “beat” and “push[ed]” Petitioner. Petitioner does not establish, or even argue, that the words “whipped” and “threw” are appreciably different from the words “beat” and “push[ed],” respectively, and 2 therefore does not show that the omission of those words may have changed the outcome of his case. Although Petitioner states that there were at least thirty-five other instances in which the interpreter translated a word or phrase incorrectly or omitted entirely a translation of Petitioner’s words, Petitioner does not specify them or indicate how they might have changed the outcome of his case, and therefore has failed to meet his burden of establishing that he was prejudiced by these errors. 2. Substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s adverse credibility determination because neither the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals