Jamal Khan v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General

Petitioner Jamal Khan petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. He claims that the notice he was given of his hearing was inadequate, and that a master calendar hearing was improper, because the notice and hearing were not translated into a language he understands and therefore violated due process. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . Because we hold that the government was not constitutionally required to provide English translations in this case, we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen Petitioner’s case. We therefore deny the petition for review.

I. Background

Petitioner Jamal Khan illegally entered the United States on May 10, 1998. In December of that year, he filed an application for asylum, listing Afghanistan as his country of origin. In the declaration accompanying his asylum application, Khan stated that he was involved in political organizing activity, for which he claimed to have been imprisoned and threatened. The asylum officer denied his application, and gave him written notice (the “first…

concurring:

The paragraph preceding the conclusion is not necessary to the opinion. I concur in the balance of the opinion.

374 F.3d 825 Jamal KHAN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 02-73906. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted February 13, 2004. * Filed July 2, 2004. Martin Resendez Guajardo, San Francisco, CA, for the petitioner. Carol Federighi, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for the respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. Ang-jzw-kvc. Before ALARCÓN, BEEZER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: 1 Petitioner Jamal Khan petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") affirmance of an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. He claims that the notice he was given of his hearing was inadequate, and that a master calendar hearing was improper, because the notice and hearing were not translated into a language he understands and therefore violated due process. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . Because we hold that the government was not constitutionally required to provide English translations in this case, we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in…