Court Opinion

ID: 9477326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:20:15.447184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:48.979231
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In my view, the April 30, 1985 mass deportation hearing was fundamentally violative of due process. Thus, it cannot serve as the basis of appellant’s criminal conviction in this case.
It is impossible for a fair hearing to be conducted simultaneously for fifty-two people. This record demonstrates that fact convincingly. It appears that a significant portion of the hearing was conducted in English. The appellant, however, did not speak English. Moreover, with very few exceptions, the interpreter did not pose questions to him as an individual. In almost every instance, he was addressed as a member of a group of people who allegedly came from El Salvador. It is unclear whether the appellant or the other members of the group understood what was happening in the proceeding or whether they even individually responded to the queries from the Immigration Judge. Given such facts, the appellant could not have received the procedural protections mandated by the Constitution.
1. All fifty-two individual defendants at the hearing were addressed as a group in English. First, they were advised of their right to counsel. If they were not represented and wanted counsel, they were told to stand. Apparently, some of the fifty-two understood English and stood. They were excused.
The judge continued, assuming his previous remarks to have been understood, “Then the rest of you then all wish to speak for yourself without an attorney or representative present today?” Immigration Hearing Transcript (IHT) at 10. That question was immediately followed in the record by the phrase: “Interpreter: Yes, by each.” Apparently, this indicated that each of the defendants had decided to go forward with the proceedings without an attorney. Yet, it is unclear whether each individual understood and responded to the judge’s query.
Moreover, based on this exchange, it appears that the interpreter only translated the judge’s second statement and that the non-English speaking individuals at the im*239migration hearing were never fully advised of their right to counsel.
2. The judge said in English that each person had received an order to show cause. This order stated the reason each individual could be deported from the United States. The judge said he would inquire whether each member had received a copy of the order and whether their name was correctly spelled in it. The judge then called each person’s name, including the appellant’s. He went on:
I’m going to read and explain these allegations to you and ask you to tell me whether the information contained here is true or not true. Allegation number one is * * * you are not a native or citizen — * * * You have no knowing claim to being a citizen of the United States through birth through a parent or parents * * *. Knowing this, do any of you claim to be a citizen of the United States.”
IHT at 14.
He then asked the group: “Do you claim to be a citizen of the United States.” As before, the interpreter simply stated “No by each.” Again, there is no indication in the record that the interpreter repeated the prior statements of the judge. To the contrary, there is only the simple question and simple answer. Moreover, there is nothing in the transcript to indicate the manner in which each person responded — whether by oral answer, a nod of the head, or some other manner.
The judge continued:
It also says you’re not a national of the United States. A national is a person who owes their permanent loyalty or allegiance or fidelity to the government of the United States. Do any of you owe your permanent loyalty or allegiance to the government of the United States?
IHT at 15.
Again, without any further elaboration, the interpreter responded: “Nobody,”
The judge then asked the following question:
To all those remaining whose names have not been called allegation two is your [sic] natives of El Salvador and citizen of El Salvador that means you were born in the country of El Salvador, your [sic] citizen of that country and have never become a citizen of any other country. Is that allegation true or not true?
IHT at 17.
Again, without more, the interpreter replied: “True by each.”
A few moments later, the only individualized question was asked of the appellant. The exchange was as follows:
JUDGE: To the next three allegations three is the same Mr. Mendez-Gonzales, Mr. Magaña-Flores, and Mr. Gomez-Po-lanco, allegation three that you all entered the United States through Del Rio, Texas, on March 29, 1985. Is that true or not true?
INTERPRETER: March 29.
JUDGE: Yes, ma’am.
INTERPRETER: True by each.
IHT at 19-20.
The judge then asked the group as a whole this question:
JUDGE: Allegation four to all of you except for Ms. Hemandez-Garcia. You were not then inspected by an Immigration Officer. In other words, when you came into the United States on the day ... you said you came into the United States, ... (unintelligible) ... and Immigration Officer at a port of entry, talked to that officer, answered that officers [sic] questions and let that officer decide whether or not you can come in the United States, came in by the river, the fence, or some other way without talking to an immigration officer. In each of your cases is that true or not true?
INTERPRETER: True by each.
IHT at 25.
Again, the record fails to indicate the nature of the answer by individuals in the group.
Strangely, only after this question had been asked and presumably answered did the judge tell the group the implications of their answer.
*240JUDGE: Then with that the government charges each of you could be deported under Section 241(a)(2) of the Immigration Act, in that you entered the United States without inspection. I’ll explain this to you. The Immigration laws of the United States provides that every alien that comes to the United States must go to an Immigration Officer at a port of entry, talk to that officer, answer that officer’s questions, identify yourself as an alien, and let that officer decide whether or not you can come into the United States. If you do not do it that way, if you come in by the river, the fence, or falsely claiming to be a United States citizen, the law says you should be deported. In each of your cases, is it true or not you could be deported because of this law.
INTERPRETER: True by each.
IHT at 25.
Through this, and earlier questions and answers, each person in the group theoretically consented to deportation. I cannot, on the basis of this record, believe that they were fully informed of their right to counsel, the nature of the offense that each had allegedly committed, or, most importantly, that each one understood the questions asked, or that each individually answered the questions asked. Under such circumstances, the denial of due process is apparent.
After the questions outlined above were asked and answered, the judge explained in English to the individuals present their right to political asylum. The judge explained this right existed if there was a well-founded fear of persecution because of political opinion. He then asked whether anyone would like to ask for political asylum. IHT at 27. The interpreter answered, “No, by each.” Again, the record does not indicate whether the interpreter explained the right or simply asked the second question. This Court should not assume the former.
It is difficult to imagine a hearing more lacking in due process. I would hold that mass hearings are not violative of due process only if they are restricted to a reasonable number of people (certainly less than fifty-two) and only if the record makes it clear that the interpreter repeats in full the statements and questions of the judge and secures an affirmative oral response from each person whom the government seeks to deport. Unfortunately, that was not the procedure followed here. I would thus reverse the district court.