Court Opinion

ID: 9477325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:20:15.444299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:48.977265
License: Public Domain

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.
Mario Antonio Polanco-Gomez appeals from a district court1 judgment entered on a jury verdict convicting him of illegally reentering the United States after deportation. 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We affirm.
Polanco-Gomez, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, was arrested by United States Border Patrol agents on April 1, 1985. Subsequently, an Immigration Law Judge (IU) in El Paso, Texas, held a group deportation hearing for Polanco-Gomez and fifty-two other persons from six different Spanish-speaking countries. An interpreter translated the entire proceeding into Spanish. After the hearing, Polanco-Go-mez was deported to El Salvador. Fourteen months later, United States Border Patrol agents found Polanco-Gomez during a raid of the Northwest Arkansas Poultry Plant in Rogers, Arkansas. Polanco-Go-mez was indicted on charges of unauthorized reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Before trial, Polanco-Gomez moved to suppress evidence of his deportation on the ground that he was denied a fundamentally fair deportation hearing because he speaks no English and was unable to understand the proceedings. He also alleged that the entire hearing was not conducted in accordance with due process of law. After reviewing the transcript of the deportation hearing, the district court concluded that the hearing had been conducted with due regard for Polanco-Gomez’s constitutional rights and thus denied the motion. The jury returned a guilty verdict, and the district court sentenced Polanco-Gomez to two years’ imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. The execution of the sentence was suspended, and Polanco-Gomez was placed on probation for five years with a special condition that he comply with all immigration and naturalization laws.
I.
On appeal, Polanco-Gomez first argues that the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence of his deportation. Specifically, he argues that the trial court erred by failing to hold an evidentia-ry hearing, at which he would have testified that, because of his dialect, he was unable to understand the Spanish translation the interpreter rendered. He also would have shown that he was denied due process because the group deportation hearing was confused and chaotic. The government responds that Polanco-Gomez never requested an evidentiary hearing and that the trial court’s review of the deportation hearing transcript was sufficient. Furthermore, the government argues that group deportation hearings are constitutionally permissible.
The Supreme Court has recently affirmed this court’s authorization of collateral attacks on deportation orders. United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 2148, 2155, 95 L.Ed.2d 772 (1987). Due process requires that “a collateral challenge to the use of a deportation proceeding as an element of a criminal offense must be permitted where the deportation proceeding effectively eliminates the right of the alien to obtain judicial review.” Id. In Mendoza-Lopez, the immigrants were deprived of judicial review because the immigration judge had not adequately informed them of their right to request suspension of deportation and had accepted *237their unknowing waivers of their right to appeal. Id. at 2156. Thus, their deportations could not be used to support a felony-conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. Id.
In this case, the district court permitted Polanco-Gomez to collaterally attack the underlying deportation. The district court’s finding that the deportation hearing was conducted with due regard for Polanco-Gomez’s constitutional rights, although lacking a detailed analysis, is amply supported by the record. First, nothing in the record indicates that Polanco-Gomez could not understand the interpreter’s Spanish translation. The IU asked each respondent if he understood why he was at the hearing. A single, translated, affirmative response appears on the record as one answer for all of the respondents. Cf. United States v. Barraza-Leon, 575 F.2d 218, 221 (9th Cir.1978) (concluding that single, translated reply, “indicating the substance, though doubtless not the precise words, of each respondent’s answer” in group deportation hearing not violative of due process). Polanco-Gomez never indicated that he could not understand the IU’s questions. Throughout the proceedings, he responded appropriately to a variety of questions. He admitted the specific allegations against him: that he was not a United States citizen but a citizen of El Salvador; that he had entered the United States near Del Rio, Texas, on March 29, 1985, without being inspected by an immigration officer. Later, Polanco-Gomez acknowledged that he understood the interpreter.
Second, we conclude that the deportation hearing, although involving a large number of respondents, was conducted in accordance with due process. The Supreme Court has expressly reserved the question of the propriety of group deportation procedures. United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 107 S.Ct. at 2150 n. 1. The Ninth Circuit has stated that due process demands that “mass deportation hearings must have an outer limit,” and concluded that hearings with twenty-nine detainees reached that limit. United States v. Calles-Pineda, 627 F.2d 976, 977 (9th Cir.1980) (per curiam). In subsequent cases, however, the Ninth Circuit has clarified its view, finding that “reaching the outer limit is not simply a function of how many or how few people are involved, but also whether the number results in prejudice to individuals.” United States v. Nicholas-Armenta, 763 F.2d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir.1985). In Nicholas-Armenta, the defendant’s due process challenge to his thirty-three person deportation hearing failed because he did not demonstrate actual prejudice. Id. at 1091. Cf. United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 781 F.2d 111, 113 (8th Cir.1985) (successful collateral attack predicated on showing prejudice), aff'd, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 2148, 95 L.Ed.2d 772 (1987). Thus, a defendant must show prejudice to successfully collaterally attack a deportation hearing on due process grounds.
Here, the IU excused eleven of the respondents after they indicated that they wished to be represented by an attorney. Forty-one individuals went forward with the proceedings. Polanco-Gomez does not contend that the proceeding resulted in actual prejudice to him or that he had a defense to his deportation. Although we do not approve of the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s practice of holding deportation hearings for ever larger numbers of detainees — a practice that if continued will inevitably lead to a holding such as that proposed by the dissenting opinion — in the absence of any showing by Polanco-Go-mez of any actual prejudice, we hold that no due process violation occurred.
In light of the above discussion, Polanco-Gomez’s contention that a hearing was required is without merit. Significantly, Po-lanco-Gomez neither requested a hearing nor submitted an affidavit supporting his contentions. Evidentiary hearings need not be held as a matter of course when a motion to suppress is filed. United States v. Mims, 812 F.2d 1068, 1073-74 (8th Cir.1987) (concluding that a hearing will not be granted unless the moving papers are sufficiently definite, detailed and nonconjec-tural to show that issues of fact are in question). A hearing is not required if a *238dispute can be resolved on the basis of the record. Reese v. Frey, 801 F.2d 348, 350 (8th Cir.1986) (denying habeas corpus petition without hearing).
II.
Polanco-Gomez next argues that the trial court erred by prohibiting him from offering evidence to establish a choice of evils or duress defense. His offer of proof was that he had reentered the United States after deportation because he feared for his life in El Salvador. His mountain village is constantly occupied by either government troops or anti-government rebels. Essentially, Polanco-Gomez was attempting to prove that he qualified for political asylum. Cf. I.N.S. v. Cardoza-Fonseca, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 1222, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987) (holding that to show a well-founded fear of persecution to qualify for asylum under the Refugee Act an individual need not prove that it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted in his home country). A criminal trial for the felony of illegal reentry after deportation, however, is not the proper forum to argue a ease for political asylum.
The compulsion or duress that will excuse criminal conduct must be such as “to induce a well-founded fear of immediate great bodily harm or death.” United States v. Palmer, 458 F.2d 663, 665 (9th Cir.1972). If there was a reasonable, legal alternative to violating the law, the defense of necessity will fail. United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 410, 100 S.Ct. 624, 634-35, 62 L.Ed.2d 575 (1980). Prior to his arrest, Polanco-Gomez had not applied for political asylum, although the IU had informed him of his right to do so. PolancoGomez’s offer of proof failed to show that he would have experienced immediate harm had he stayed in El Salvador. Additionally, he had the option of going to a country other than the United States. Thus, the court did not err in ruling that the defense of duress was not available.
The judgment is affirmed.

. The Honorable H. Franklin Waters, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.