Opinion ID: 786870
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Master Calendar Hearing

Text: 12 Whether Khan's due process rights were violated when the IJ failed to translate the proceedings at the master calendar hearing is a closer question. Although no regulation defines what constitutes a master calendar hearing, it generally resembles a docket call or status call in state and federal courts. See In re Arguelles-Campos, 22 I. & N. Dec. 811, 1999 WL 360383, at  (BIA June 7, 1999) (interim decision 3399) (Grant, Board Member, concurring). The Local Operating Procedures for Immigration Courts that discuss a master calendar hearing generally advise aliens to be prepared to respond to the allegations contained in the charging document, to present all applications for relief from removal, and to indicate how much time will be needed for trial. See, e.g., Local Operating Procedures, Immigration Court, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at 1-2, available at http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/efoia/ocij/localop/PHI.pdf (last visited June 21, 2004). Generally, in cases such as Khan's, the alien will either request a continuance so that he or she may speak with an attorney, or he or she may concede removability but make an affirmative request, such as a request for asylum. 13 The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees an alien a full and fair hearing of his claims and a reasonable opportunity to present evidence on his behalf. Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000). We have held that a hearing on the merits must be translated into a language an alien can understand in order for it to comport with these requirements. See He v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 593, 598 (9th Cir.2003). This requirement is met if an alien can participate meaningfully in asserting his claims or putting on his defense. Hartooni v. INS, 21 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir.1994). 14 In this case, it is apparent that Khan's master calendar hearing was constitutionally adequate even though it was not translated. Although we do not have a transcript of what occurred at the master calendar hearing, it is undisputed that Khan requested, and received, a continuance so that he could be represented by counsel. Thus, Khan was able to protect his interests at the master calendar hearing, and had he attended his second hearing, he would have been able to present the merits of his case. 15 We do not hold that due process never requires that the INS provide a translation at a master calendar hearing, for there may be circumstances, not present in this case, in which a translation would be constitutionally required. For purposes of this case, however, it is enough to say that Khan's due process rights were not violated by the failure to provide a translation at his master calendar hearing.