Unpublished Disposition, 933 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1988)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Petitioner Turrado, a citizen of Spain, was charged with entering the United States without inspection in violation of Sec. 241(a) (2) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a) (2). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed petitioner's appeal in a per curiam order, upholding the immigration judge's (IJ) decision finding petitioner deportable, denying his applications for asylum and withholding of deportation, and denying him voluntary departure. We affirm.

At a March 3, 1988, hearing, while represented by counsel, petitioner admitted his deportability and refused to designate a country he wished to be deported to. Petitioner appealed the IJ's decision to the BIA pro se, alleging he was denied due process because "the court failed to provide proper and adequate translation of questions posed to me by the Attorney for the Immigration and Naturalization Service." (AR at 22.) INS regulations contemplate that proceedings and documents in a foreign language will be accurately translated. 8 C.F.R. Secs. 242.12, 103.2.

We review a denial of due process in an immigration proceeding de novo. Barraza Rivera v. INS, 913 F.2d 1443, 1448 (9th Cir. 1990). The due process issue in this case turns on a question of fact: whether the translation from Spanish to English at petitioner's deportation hearing was sufficiently accurate to enable petitioner to place his claims before the IJ. The BIA made a factual finding that there was no evidence in the transcript of the hearing to indicate there were errors or inaccuracies in the translation. (AR at 2.)

There is substantial evidence supporting this finding by the BIA. See Barraza Rivera, 913 F.2d at 1450. A de novo review of the record as a whole demonstrates no denial of due process in this case. We agree with the INS that the alleged errors in translation appear to have had no bearing on the IJ's denial of petitioner's claims for asylum or withholding of deportation. The transcript, when read in its entirety and in context, reveals that the record was clarified when petitioner appeared to be confused by the translation or by the question itself. Problems were quickly clarified by the IJ, the attorneys, and the translator.

Furthermore, petitioner has not demonstrated that the alleged violation of his due process rights prejudiced him "in a manner so as potentially to affect the outcome of the proceedings." Id. at 1448 (quoting United States v. Cerda-Pena, 799 F.2d 1374, 1379 (9th Cir. 1986)). The alleged errors in translation do not indicate that the petitioner and the judge were not understood. Compare Augustin v. Sava, 735 F.2d 32, 38 (2nd Cir. 1984) (translation "nonsensical" and in "grave doubt").

The IJ clearly understood the basis of petitioner's claims to be his fear of persecution if he returned to Spain due to his criticism of the Spanish government and an incident in Panama where petitioner allegedly threw stones at the Spanish ambassador. (AR 27-31.) We agree with the INS that the examples of confusion in the transcript cited by petitioner are minor and isolated. The transcript is more than adequate for appellate review and demonstrates ample bases for the decision of the IJ and the dismissal of petitioner's appeal.

AFFIRMED.