Opinion ID: 2996780
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lack of Interpreter

Text: A due process challenge alleging a failure to be heard meaningfully because no interpreter was provided is No. 02-3172 15 procedural in nature and therefore must be raised before the BIA. See, e.g., Malek v. INS, 198 F.3d 1016, 1021-22 (7th Cir. 2000). Respondent alleges Capric failed to exhaust his administrative remedy as to this issue, thereby waiving it here. While Capric stated in his notice of appeal that the “deportation hearing did not comport with the requirem[e]nt of due process,” (A.R. 49), there was no explicit elaboration in his subsequent BIA appeal brief, (A.R. 17-26). The appeal brief does contain a cursory mention of the interpreter problem: The IJ in his decision about credibility states that the Respondent is fluent in English, this is an overstatement. The Respondent does speak and understand some English but as can be seen in the transcript he is far from fluent. After the Respondent initially attempted to testify in English, the IJ stopped the hearing because he felt an interpreter was needed. (A.R. 23) (citations omitted). Although Capric’s appeal to the BIA did not frame the lack of an interpreter problem explicitly in due process terms, the combination of both his notice of appeal and his later brief were arguably enough to alert the BIA to the issue. See, e.g., Abdulrahman, 330 F.3d at 595 n.5. Regardless of whether the issue was properly preserved for appeal, the claim is easily determined to be meritless. Capric failed to either allege or demonstrate any prejudice resulting from his testimony at Hearing 1. At his attorney’s suggestion, Capric did testify in English at Hearing 1. (A.R. 84.) However, it quickly became apparent that Capric needed an interpreter, and the IJ sua sponte terminated the hearing. (A.R. 103.) At the second hearing in 1998, an Albanian interpreter was provided. Capric does not argue that any evidence was misunderstood or otherwise obscured because of language difficulties in Hearing 2. Nowhere does he question the capabil16 No. 02-3172 ity of the interpreter provided in Hearing 2. His basic argument is that the adverse credibility finding was somehow the result of his testimony given in English in Hearing 1. However, even now Capric does not identify any specific testimony from Hearing 1 that the IJ relied upon in his decision. Instead, when referencing Capric’s testimony, the IJ referred exclusively to testimony given in Hearing 2, where Capric was assisted by an interpreter. Furthermore, Hearing 2 provided Capric with a full opportunity to testify on his own behalf and to clarify any points of confusion which he perceived to have resulted from Hearing 1. Hence, Capric has not demonstrated, or even alleged, that he was prejudiced by his attorney’s decision to have him testify in English at Hearing 1.6 Moreover, due process requires a meaningful opportunity to present a claim, but imposes no obligation to ensure that the alien actually makes a meaningful presentation. Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 (4th Cir. 2002). Capric, through counsel, “suggest[ed]” and agreed to testify in English at Hearing 1. (A.R. 84.) Thus, to the extent that Capric’s alleged language problems were selfinflicted, we can provide no relief. Rusu, 296 F.3d at 324; but cf. Nazarova v. INS, 171 F.3d 478, 480-82 (7th Cir. 1999) (vacating a deportation order entered in absentia on due process grounds when alien would not take the stand without the interpreter, who was late); Amadou v. 6 Capric makes repeated mention of the IJ’s statement in his opinion that Capric was “fluent in English.” (A.R. 57.) But it is irrelevant with respect to his due process claim. Regardless of whether Capric was fluent in English, the provision of an Albanian interpreter at Hearing 2 ensured that he had a meaningful opportunity to present his claim and to explain any inconsistencies between his two applications and his testimony, as was the IJ’s concern. No. 02-3172 17 INS, 226 F.3d 724, 728 (6th Cir. 2000) (finding a due process violation where specific and identifiable misinterpretations led to an adverse credibility determination).