Opinion ID: 149229
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application to Mr. Hasan's Case

Text: As noted above, after remand the district court concluded under this first step that Mr. Hasan's primary language was English. In explaining this conclusion, the court stated: There should be no doubt from all of the factual findings previously entered herein that the primary language utilized by the Defendant in the performance of his daily life functions was English. Specifically, the evidence was uncontroverted that the Defendant communicated with 1) his employers, 2) students on his bus routes and 3) his wife, in English. R., Vol. I, Doc. 180, at 2 n. 2. As further support for its finding, the district court pointed to the fact that the Defendant waived the services of an interpreter when he was interviewed by [a] probation officer shortly after the grand jury proceedings. Id. at 3. Mr. Hasan now argues that the district court failed to apply the law as we set it out in Hasan I. According to Mr. Hasan, the district court's focus on his communication with his employers, his students, and his wife ignores our instructions that the word primarily in the CIA is not to be treated as conterminous with most frequently. Aplt. Br. at 30. Indeed, his employers, students, and wife do not speak the Somali language, and Mr. Hasan contends that the necessity to speak with them in English or forego communication does not rationally point to primacy of English skills over Somalian. Id. Whether the district court properly applied the requisite standards under the CIA is a legal question which we review de novo. We will not give deference to the district court's opinion. Office of Thrift Supervision v. Overland Park Fin. Corp. (In re Overland Park Financial Corp.), 236 F.3d 1246, 1251 (10th Cir.2001). We agree with Mr. Hasan that the district court failed to apply the correct legal standard. As highlighted above, the district court considered several indicators suggesting that Mr. Hasan regularly spoke English. But it did not weigh these indicators against contrary indicators of his Somali-language ability. In other words, despite the blueprint we provided in Hasan I, the district court did not seek to measure Mr. Hasan's comparative ability to speak the language. This is a legal error amounting to an abuse of discretion. There is no doubt that Mr. Hasan used English in some circumstancesperhaps even most circumstances. But under the proper legal standard, such a fact does not necessarily entail a finding that his primary language was English, especially in light of the welter of conflicting evidence on Mr. Hasan's language abilities. Hasan I, 526 F.3d at 663. This is precisely why we insisted on a comparative standard in the first place, and why it is crucial for the district court to analyze Mr. Hasan's language abilities under this standard.