Zace

concurring.

I concur, but add a further observation by way of constructive criticism. To the extent the IJ’s impatience and frustration with Zace was caused or exacerbated by the translation problems, the IJ should in the future consider postponing the hearing in order to obtain a competent interpreter, especially when so requested by counsel as in this case, thereby avoiding what appears here to have been an unnecessarily contentious hearing.

MEMORANDUM *

Pullumb Zace and his two minor daughters, Aluisa and Ledia (“Petitioner”), 1 petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ streamlined affirmance of the immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) decision. The IJ denied Petitioner’s request for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition.

Although serious translation problems existed at the petitioner’s hearing, Petitioner has demonstrated no prejudice from the problems. Accordingly, we must affirm on this ground. 2 We also affirm the IJ’s conclusion that the Government introduced sufficient evidence of changed country conditions to rebut the presumption of future persecution to which Petitioner was entitled. 3 The IJ also properly rejected Petitioner’s claim for asylum *781 based on humanitarian grounds. 4 Although the past persecution Petitioner suffered was serious, it was not so extreme as to justify this unusual form of relief. 5 Finally, although the IJ cited the wrong standard when he discussed his earlier conclusion that Petitioner had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of future persecution, 6 nothing indicates that he applied the wrong standard when he drew the earlier conclusion. As Petitioner…