Opinion ID: 4880755
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: B.C.’s Alleged Persecution in Cameroon

Text: Speakers of “Pidgin” English, like B.C., are considered “Anglophones” in Cameroon. He reports that Francophones, including the predominantly Francophone Cameroonian government, “do not accept Anglophones in the community and treat them as second-class citizens.” A.R. at 238, 348, 440. B.C. claims he was subjected to particularly egregious mistreatment because he was a supporter of an opposition party called the Social Democratic Front (“SDF”) and a member of the Southern Cameroon National Council (“SCNC”), a nonviolent political group that advocates for independence from Francophones. B.C. reports that the Cameroonian government arrested and detained him twice as a result of his support for these groups. More gravely, he claims military officers shot and killed his brother at an SCNC demonstration. With the help of family friends, B.C. managed to escape the country, and he entered the United States in January 2018. 8 C. Initial Interactions with Immigration Officials Upon entry, officers of the United States Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) interviewed B.C. and seized his documents. Among those documents was a card listing him as a member of the SCNC. As a result of the interview, Customs determined he was subject to removal and placed him in detention. No interpreter was provided during this interview, and, as B.C. reported, he therefore “did [his] best with [his] limited [‘Standard’] English.” A.R. at 123. When he expressed a fear of returning to Cameroon, the Customs officer referred him for a credible fear interview, which is a threshold proceeding conducted by an asylum officer from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to determine whether a case should be referred to an IJ for a full hearing. About three weeks later, B.C. attended his credible fear interview. Again, no interpreter was provided. B.C. reports that, “[a]lthough [he] did not always understand everything [he] was asked,” he “did [his] best to use . . . [‘]Standard[’] English” during the interview. Id. The asylum officer determined B.C. had established the requisite credible fear and referred his case to an IJ. Throughout this period and in preparation for his appearance before the IJ, B.C. asked the Government to return his SCNC membership card numerous times, but the Government failed to do so and he was unable to get the card back for more than a year. D. Appearances before the IJ B.C. subsequently made multiple appearances before the IJ. Because the IJ’s approach to the language issue varied 9 by hearing, we describe the events of each hearing in detail. Notably, over the course of these proceedings, B.C. (who was appearing pro se) was not once asked to identify in his own words the languages he speaks or offered a “Pidgin” English interpreter.
B.C. first appeared before the IJ in March 2018. The scene was passing strange: Due to a “scrivener’s error,” B.C.’s Notice to Appear erroneously stated that he was a citizen of Guatemala. A.R. at 438. He therefore found himself at a preliminary group hearing with noncitizens who primarily spoke Spanish and where the only available interpreter was a Spanish speaker. When the IJ turned to B.C., he did not ask what languages B.C. spoke, but instead gave him a simple choice between two languages: “Spanish or English?” A.R. at 460. Having no other option, B.C. chose English. Id. In “Standard” English and with a Spanish interpreter, the IJ then explained the removal process to the group.
A few days later, B.C. appeared before the IJ again for an individual hearing. The IJ opened the hearing by introducing a Spanish interpreter without asking whether B.C. spoke that language. Because B.C. is not a Spanish speaker, he interjected with one word: “English.” Id. The IJ did not inquire about what type of English B.C. spoke, instead asking him preliminary questions in “Standard” English and clarifying that he was not in fact a citizen of Guatemala. In the middle of the proceeding, the IJ asked B.C., “Do you need a French interpreter or are you okay with the English?” A.R. at 480. 10 B.C. responded that he was “okay in English.” Id. The IJ later asked if B.C. “read and underst[ood] French and English,” to which B.C. responded, “I read and understand English and French, a little bit.” A.R. at 484–85. In response to the IJ’s substantive questions, B.C. admitted that he entered the United States without the appropriate documentation. The IJ therefore sustained the removability charge. B.C. then filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT, which he later supplemented with various supporting documents, including his brother’s Cameroonian death certificate, evidence of country conditions in Cameroon, and statements from friends corroborating the circumstances of his brother’s death.
For months after these preliminary hearings, B.C. remained in detention and attempted to improve his “Standard” English. In July 2018, the IJ convened a merits hearing. B.C. again appeared pro se. The IJ asked him a series of questions without first inquiring whether he needed an interpreter and instead asking only whether he was an “English speaker” or an “Anglophone.” A.R. at 526, 531, 543. The hearing transcript suggests there was a language barrier between B.C. and the IJ. For example, at least 36 separate times the transcript records B.C.’s testimony as “indiscernible,” meaning the court reporter was unable to decipher what he was saying. And the IJ frequently interrupted B.C. to criticize him for sounding “memorized” and “stilted.” See AR at 539–41, 549, 554–55, 588. 11 After the questioning concluded, the IJ and B.C. had a lengthy discussion demonstrating the IJ’s failure to appreciate the distinction between “Standard” and “Pidgin” English. We reproduce portions of the conversation below to illustrate the depth of the misunderstanding between the two: [Judge:] When we first started off, I have to tell you something, you were running like a train out of the station. Almost like you memorized something and I couldn’t . . . understand what was going on because it was very stilted. And I’m trying to be as understanding as possible but there are some inconsistencies from what the Asylum Officer said . . . . [B.C.:] Your Honor, maybe it was the language because -- [Judge:] You speak English. I speak English. [B.C.:] Yes, my English wasn’t fluent [during the interview with the asylum officer]. I speak, it wasn’t really coming out. But now I practice a lot . . . . [Judge:] . . . . [W]hy would you have to practice English if your mom and your family spoke English at home? [B.C.:] I started English just in primary school. Going to secondary school, we have just French. [Judge:] But what did your parents speak? [B.C.:] Huh. [Judge:] What did your mom and dad speak? [B.C.:] They speak our local language.