Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/44/1251/513086/
Timestamp: 2020-07-10 20:37:53
Document Index: 443618047

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1182', '§ 1105', '§ 1252', '§ 1252', '§ 1252', '§ 1252']

Nelson Gandarillas-zambrana, A/k/a Oscar Jr. Gandarillas,a/k/a Nalson Gandarillos, Petitioner, v. Board of Immigration Appeals, Respondent, 44 F.3d 1251 (4th Cir. 1995) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Fourth Circuit › 1995 › Nelson Gandarillas-zambrana, A/k/a Oscar Jr. Gandarillas,a/k/a Nalson Gandarillos, Petitioner, v. Bo...
Nelson Gandarillas-zambrana, A/k/a Oscar Jr. Gandarillas,a/k/a Nalson Gandarillos, Petitioner, v. Board of Immigration Appeals, Respondent, 44 F.3d 1251 (4th Cir. 1995)
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 44 F.3d 1251 (4th Cir. 1995) Argued Nov. 3, 1994. Decided Jan. 20, 1995
Petitioner Nelson Gandarillas-Zambrana, a Bolivian national who has been ordered deported, appeals an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying his application for a discretionary waiver of deportation under section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), as amended 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the decision of the BIA.
This Court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a to review only "final orders of deportation" entered after exhaustion of all administrative remedies. Huaman-Cornelio v. BIA, 979 F.2d 995, 999 (4th Cir. 1992). Because the BIA is the highest administrative tribunal, we usually review only its findings and final order, rather than those of the IJ. Id. However, here the BIA adopted the findings and reasoning of the IJ in a one-paragraph per curiam opinion. We hereby adopt the rule of the Tenth Circuit and hold that if the BIA "chooses to rely on the express reasoning of the [IJ] ..., that reasoning will be the sole basis for our review, and if we find that reasoning inadequate, we will ... reverse the holding of the [IJ]." Panrit v. INS, 19 F.3d 544, 546 (10th Cir. 1994). The decision whether to grant a waiver of deportation is committed to the sound discretion of the Attorney General or her delegate (here, the IJ), and we review that decision for abuse of discretion. Casalena v. INS, 984 F.2d 105, 106 (4th Cir. 1993).
At the outset, the INS contends that because these constitutional claims were not raised before the BIA, Gandarillas has waived them. Although a failure to raise claims before the BIA does ordinarily constitute a waiver that precludes their consideration on judicial review, Farrokhi v. INS, 900 F.2d 697, 700-01 (4th Cir. 1990), Gandarillas urges us to recognize an exception to this general rule for denial of due process claims, as he contends the Ninth Circuit did in Vargas v. Department of Immigration, 831 F.2d 906, 908 (9th Cir. 1987).
As we did in Farrokhi, we can avoid deciding here whether such an exception should be recognized and, if so, its scope, because here, as in Farrokhi, the claims are demonstrably without merit. Farrokhi, 900 F.2d at 701. While an alien is of course entitled to the constitutional protections of due process in deportation proceedings, The Japanese Immigrant, 189 U.S. 86, 100-01, 23 S. Ct. 611, 614-15, 47 L. Ed. 721 (1903), the alleged violations here do not rise even to the level of abuse of administrative or judicial discretion, not to say to the level of constitutional defects. In all the respects challenged, the proceedings were conducted in accordance with governing statutes and regulations which are not themselves challenged as unconstitutional.
First, holding the hearing in Louisiana violated no statutory or constitutional right. It was held in Oakdale, Louisiana because Gandarillas had been transferred to the permanent INS Federal Detention Center in that location from the temporary INS detention center in Arlington, Virginia after he failed to post bond. The INS necessarily has the authority to determine the location of detention of an alien in deportation proceedings, INA Sec. 242(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(c), and therefore, to transfer aliens from one detention center to another. Sasso v. Milhollan, 735 F. Supp. 1045, 1048 (S.D. Fla. 1990). The INA guaranteed Gandarillas the same rights and privileges at a deportation proceeding in Louisiana as it would elsewhere. Id., at 1049. Accordingly, there is nothing inherently irregular, not to say unconstitutional, about the transfer from Virginia to Louisiana. Finally, viewed as a matter of venue, it must be noted that Gandarillas never moved for a change1 but indicated his willingness to proceed at the scheduled hearing in Louisiana.
Furthermore, Gandarillas was not denied the right to counsel or the right to present witnesses and evidence by holding the hearing in Louisiana. Although an alien does not have a sixth amendment right to representation in a deportation proceeding, Committee of Cent. Am. Refugees v. INS, 795 F.2d 1434, 1439 (9th Cir. 1986), he does have a statutory "privilege of legal representation at a deportation hearing at no expense to the government." Delgado-Corea v. INS, 804 F.2d 261, 262 (4th Cir. 1986) (citing INA Sec. 242(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)). However, he does not have the right to be detained where his ability to obtain representation is the greatest. Sasso, 735 F. Supp. at 1049 (citing Committee of Cent. Am. Refugees, 795 F.2d at 1437).
Nor was his right to present witnesses and evidence violated by the transfer to and hearing in Louisiana. He had the same legal right to present witnesses and evidence in Louisiana that he would have had anywhere, and he has not demonstrated any practical prejudice to that right resulting from the hearing's location. He did in fact present evidence in the form of letters and documents. And he has failed to specify what additional evidence or witnesses he would have presented had the hearing taken place elsewhere, or why affidavits of those witnesses would have been insufficient. This lack of specificity is fatal to Gandarillas's claim; we could not determine whether the place of hearing violated his right to present evidence and witnesses without any record indication of the nature of evidence otherwise available to him and its potential importance to his claim. See Maldonado-Perez v. INS, 865 F.2d 328, 334-36 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (holding that alien must name specific witnesses in order to prevail on change of venue motion); cf. Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89, 92-93 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that IJ abused discretion in refusing to change venue to city where alien had already retained counsel and where counsel had located three witnesses willing to testify).
Second, the IJ's questioning during the hearing did not violate Gandarillas's right to due process. The IJ has authority in a deportation hearing to examine and cross-examine witnesses, including the deportee himself. INA Sec. 242(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b). While it might have been preferable for the IJ to limit himself to eliciting positive information of the type that counsel for Gandarillas might have elicited and to refrain from eliciting negative information so long as the U.S. Attorney was present to fulfill that function, we could not conclude that the IJ's questioning rose to the level of violating Gandarillas's statutory or constitutional rights. The IJ's questioning did not deprive Gandarillas of a fair and meaningful hearing--it was the most orderly means by which any mitigating information could be presented; it did not elicit false admissions; and Gandarillas had sufficient opportunity to add other information not elicited by the judge.
Third, Gandarillas was not prejudiced by the lack of a Spanish translator at his hearings. Gandarillas argues that it is "self-evident" that his English was too poor for the hearing to be conducted without a translator present. It is true that an alien who does not understand English has the right to the services of a translator at his deportation hearing in order to effectuate his right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. Drobny v. INS, 947 F.2d 241, 244 (7th Cir. 1991); Tejeda-Mata v. INS, 626 F.2d 721, 726 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 994, 102 S. Ct. 2280, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1291 (1982). However, in the present case, the IJ confirmed several times that Gandarillas understood English. Furthermore, his answers were intelligible and responsive to the IJ's questions. Thus, the IJ's conclusion that Gandarillas's command of the English language was adequate to ensure a fair and meaningful hearing is amply supported by the record, and we could find no violation of statutory or constitutional right in the failure to provide a translator.
Fourth, Gandarillas was not prejudiced by being made to appear at his hearings in prison clothing. He was wearing such clothes because he was being detained in relation to his deportation hearing, not pursuant to any conviction. The IJ knew this and had no reason to infer otherwise. In addition, there was nothing formally irregular about the procedure; INA regulations even authorize deportation proceedings to be conducted inside correctional facilities in certain instances. INA Sec. 242a, 8 U.S.C. § 1252a. There is no evidence that Gandarillas's wearing prison clothing increased the IJ's consciousness of his criminal history or affected his judgment. We therefore could not find any violation of constitutional right in this aspect of the process.
Gandarillas argues in particular that the IJ erred in failing to find one factor: his rehabilitation. Although not necessarily dispositive, demonstrated rehabilitation is an important factor in the determination whether an alien with a criminal record should be granted section 212(c) relief from deportation. Hazzard v. INS, 951 F.2d 435, 439 (1st Cir. 1991) (citing Matter of Edwards, Int. Dec. 3134 (BIA 1990); Matter of Buscemi, Int. Dec. 3058 (BIA 1988)). The Seventh Circuit has attempted to identify the factors that should be considered in the determination whether an alien is rehabilitated.
Palacios-Torres v. INS, 995 F.2d 96, 99-100 (7th Cir. 1993) (footnote omitted). We adopt the Seventh Circuit's approach.
In addition, a finding that rehabilitation as well as the other positive equities, or Marin factors, exist does not automatically entitle an alien to section 212(c) relief. The BIA must balance these against any adverse factors weighing against the propriety of granting the requested relief.3 Casalena, 984 F.2d at 107. Furthermore, when an alien has a record of serious criminal activity, he must demonstrate "unusual or outstanding equities" in order to be eligible for a favorable exercise of discretion under section 212(c). Casalena, 984 F.2d at 107; Ayala-Chavez v. INS, 944 F.2d 638, 641 (9th Cir. 1991); Matter of Edwards, Int.Dec. 3134, at 7 (BIA 1990); Matter of Buscemi, 19 I & N Dec. 628, 633-34 (BIA 1988). We could not conclude that the IJ erred in finding that a record of approximately fifteen convictions over nine years is a "record of serious criminal activity." In Matter of Edwards, the BIA found that an alien's pattern of criminal misconduct over ten years was serious enough to require a showing of unusual or outstanding equities before relief was appropriately granted. Id. at 9. See also Akinyemi v. INS, 969 F.2d 285, 288-89 (7th Cir. 1992) (one conviction for conspiracy and importing and possessing heroin was serious, even though it only involved one transaction and warranted only a five year sentence). In light of the precedent, the IJ's decision here to require Gandarillas to show unusual or outstanding equities was not arbitrary or capricious.
We note that the IJ need not have done so explicitly so long as he announced his "decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that" he has thoughtfully considered the evidence. Casalena, 984 F.2d at 107 (quoting Becerra-Jimenez v. INS, 829 F.2d 996, 1000 (10th Cir. 1987))