Court Opinion

ID: 9455048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:07:24.605913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:25.650250
License: Public Domain

BURGER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
Petitioner’s claims on appeal are purely dilatory processes to keep him in the country a little longer, until — as conceded at oral argument — some “administrative exception” can be developed for him. Nevertheless, no basis for making such an exception has been suggested; in fact, Petitioner has conceded that he was illegally in the United States when apprehended. Dilatory tactics are not new in deportation cases; they are the rule rather than the exception and they ought not to be encouraged by the courts.
The majority’s juxtaposition of the right to counsel claim and the interpreter issue cannot suffice as a justification for reversal and remand. Although Petitioner contends that he was not provided with a competent interpreter in his own particular dialect, it is significant that he does not allege an inability to understand or communicate with the interpreter. Moreover, since the Special Inquiry Officer was in a position to view both the interpreter and Petitioner, great weight should be given to his finding that they “conversed with each other fluently.” Taken together with the Board of Immigration Appeals’ statement that “[t]he record contains nothing to show that the alien did not understand the interpreter assigned at the hearing”, I see no reason for disturbing the finding that Petitioner made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his statutory right to counsel.