Miguel Tejeda-Mata v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Petitioner Miguel Tejeda-Mata appeals an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dated November 16, 1978 dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s finding of deportability under section 241(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (a)(2), and granting him voluntary departure. 1 The principal *723 issues presented are whether (1) the Immigration Judge’s finding as to the sufficiency of the evidence was supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence, and (2) the administrative authorities denied petitioner due process of law in reaching the ultimate conclusion of deportability. We affirm.

I. Background

Petitioner is a native of Mexico and is charged with having entered the United States near San Ysidro, California without inspection in November 1974. While driving through a store parking lot in Connell, Washington on February 19, 1977, Immigration Officer Jimmy Spence recognized an alien whom he had previously arrested and who had been granted voluntary departure from the United States approximately three weeks earlier. After parking his vehicle so that it blocked the exit of the alien’s vehicle, Spence approached and began to open the…

dissenting:

I must dissent.

It is well established that the due process clause of the fifth amendment applies in deportation proceedings and requires that an alien be granted a full and fair hearing. Ramirez v. I&NS, 550 F.2d 560, 563 (9th Cir. 1977). Unless the statutory requisites 1 for such hearings have been satisfied, an alien has not received the due process protection to which he is entitled. Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 154 , 65 S.Ct. 1443, 1452-1453 , 89 L.Ed. 2103 (1945); Hirsch v. I&NS, 308 F.2d 562, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1962). The majority notes the due process requirement, and points out that “this court and others have repeatedly recognized the importance of an interpreter to the fundamental fairness of such a hearing if the alien cannot speak English fluently.” The majority implicitly acknowledges 2 that the denial of Tejeda-Mata’s request for an interpreter constituted a denial of due process, but it holds that the denial was harmless. I submit that a denial of due process which is as fundamental as the denial here is not subject to review for harmless error. Furthermore, even if the harmless error standard were appropriate here, the error at issue was undoubtedly…

626 F.2d 721 Miguel TEJEDA-MATA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. No. 78-3651. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 19, 1980. Decided Aug. 29, 1980. Charles H. Barr, Tri-Cities, Wash., for petitioner. Eric A. Fisher, Washington, D.C., for respondent. 1 Appeal from a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals. 2 Before CHOY and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges, and BARTELS, * District Judge. BARTELS, District Judge: 3 Petitioner Miguel Tejeda-Mata appeals an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dated November 16, 1978 dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge's finding of deportability under section 241(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (a)(2), and granting him voluntary departure. 1 The principal issues presented are whether (1) the Immigration Judge's finding as to the sufficiency of the evidence was supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence, and (2) the administrative authorities denied petitioner due process of law in reaching the ultimate conclusion of deportability. We affirm. I. Background 4 Petitioner is a native of Mexico and is charged with having…