Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
-
Upload
attorneynickchavez -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
0
Transcript of Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 1/36
No. 07-60553 ________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ________________________________________________________________
Maria Del Rosario ALMENDAREZPetitioner,
v.
Peter D. KEISLER,ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent.
________________________________________________________________
BRIEF FOR PETITIONER
________________________________________________________________
Nicolas “Nick” Chavez, Esq.Chavez & Gallagher, L.L.P.10830 N. Central Expy.SUITE 400DALLAS, TX 75231Tel: (214) 251-8011Fax: (214) 251-8021
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
i
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 2/36
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 3/36
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
Maria Del Rosario Almendarez
v.Keisler,
Cause No. 07-60553
The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed persons have aninterest in the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order thatthe Judges of the Court may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal.
1. Hon. Peter D. Keisler Acting US Attorney General
2. Angela K. Barrows Dallas USCIS Director
3. Paul Hunker Chief Counsel USICE,Dallas
4. Thomas Ward Hussey Office of ImmigrationLitigation
Respectfully submitted,
NICOLAS CHAVEZAttorney for Petitioner
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
i
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 4/36
Maria Del Rosario Almendarezv.Keisler,
Cause No. 07-60553
The arguments presented herein are dispositive of the issues at hand, therefore,Petitioner does not expressly request an oral argument, but will defer to the Court todetermine whether an oral argument is necessary before the Court enters a decision.
Respectfully submitted,
NICOLAS CHAVEZAttorney for Petitioner
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 5/36
Page
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …………………………………….. 2
SCOPE OF REVIEW ……………………………………………………… 3
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED …………………………. 4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE …………………………………………… 5
A. Statement of Facts ……………………………………………… 5
B. Decision of the Immigration Judge ……………………………. 8
C. Decision of the BIA ……………………………………………. 13
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ………………………………………….. 14
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY ……………………………………… 16A. The order of removal is not sustainable because
the government failed to provide clear and convincingevidence that the Petitioner falsely claimed to be a U.S.citizen as described in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) ……………… 16
B. The Petitioner’s due process right to a fair hearing wasviolated where the Immigration Judge permitted theintroduction of an unreliable sworn statement that wasnot properly administered by the DHS ……………………………. 22
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER ………………………………………… 28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE …………………………………………… 29
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
iii
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 6/36
FEDERAL STATUTES/ACTS
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) …………………………………………… 7
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) ……………………………………… 2-4, 7-8, 16
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(iii) …………………………………………… 20
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(A) …………………………………………… 17
8 U.S.C. § 1252 …………………………………………………. 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) …………………………………………… 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) …………………………………………… 2
8 U.S.C. § 1255 …………………………………………… 2-3
FEDERAL REGULATIONS
8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(a) …………………………………………… 17
FEDERAL CASES
Anwar v. INS , 116 F.3d 140, 144 (5th Cir. 1997) ……………………….. 23
Accardi v. Shaugnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954) ……………………….. 23
Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS , 78 F.3d 194 (5th Cir. 1996)…………………….. 4
Chun v. INS , 40 F.3d 76 (5th Cir. 1994)…………………………………….. 4
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,117 L.Ed. 2d 38, 112 S.Ct. 812 (1992)……………………………………. 4
Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft , 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001) ………... 3
iv
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 7/36
Mikhael v. INS , 115 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 1997)……………………………… 3-4
Montilla v. INS , 926 F.2d 162, 169 (2d Cir. 1991) ……………………… 23
Omagah v. Ashcroft , 288 F.3d 254, 258 (5th Cir. 2000)…………………… 3
Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993) …………………………….. 23
v
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 8/36
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 9/36
07-60553 ______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
______________________________________________________________
Maria Del Rosario Almendarez
Petitioner,
v.
Peter D. Keisler,
ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent.
______________________________________________________________
BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER
______________________________________________________________
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES PETITIONER Maria Del Rosario Almendarez (“Mrs.
Almendarez”), by and through her undersigned attorney of record, files this Brief in
support of her Petition for Review challenging the dismissal of her appeal before the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).
With respect to the BIA’s order, the Petitioner would show that it is not
supported by substantial evidence, and that any rational trier of fact would be
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 10/36
compelled to conclude that the government did not meet its burden of proof to
remove the Petitioner from the United States.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The Petitioner seeks
review of a final order of removal entered by the BIA on June 20, 2007. There is no
federal judicial review of any decision regarding the granting of discretionary relief
under 8 U.S.C. § 1255. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Notwithstanding this
preclusion, the Court may still review decisions pertaining to questions of law or
constitutional claims. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
In the instant matter, the Petitioner sought adjustment of status to a lawful
permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1255 before the Immigration Judge. An
evidentiary hearing was held to determine whether the Department of Homeland
Security could sustain its burden of proof to show that the Petitioner was
inadmissible and subject to deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(false
claim to United States citizenship), statutorily barring her from advancing an
application for adjustment of status. The Immigration Judge held that DHS met its
burden and entered an order of removal against the Petitioner.
The Petitioner does not contest any judgment regarding the discretionary
granting of relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1255, but rather, challenges the Attorney
2
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 11/36
General’s determination that she is deportable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii).
Therefore, the Court maintains jurisdiction over her Petition for Review.
SCOPE OF REVIEW
Although this Court reviews only the BIA’s decision, it may review the
findings of the Immigration Judge where the BIA expressly adopts the Judge’s
findings. Mikhael v. INS , 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997).
Factual determinations by the BIA or the Immigration Judge “are conclusive
unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). The BIA’s factual conclusion must be supported by
substantial evidence. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft , 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001).
The substantial evidence test requires only that the BIA’s decision be supported by
evidence in the administrative record and be substantially reasonable. Omagah v.
Ashcroft , 288 F.3d 254, 258 (5th Cir. 2000). Under this test, the Court may not
reverse the BIA’s factual determinations unless it “find[s] not only that the evidence
supports a contrary conclusion, but that the evidence compels it.” Chun v. INS , 40
F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1.,
117 L.Ed. 2d 38, 112 S.Ct. 812 (1992)).
On questions of law, this Court reviews the BIA’s rulings de novo, but will
defer to the BIA’s interpretation of immigration regulations if the interpretation is
3
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 12/36
reasonable. Mikhael , 115 F.3d at 305; See also Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS , 78 F.3d
194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996).
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED
The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) provided a sworn statement
over one page long, containing only thirteen questions from a DHS officer, as its
“clear and convincing” evidence to deport the Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. §
1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) (false claim to U.S. citizenship). Petitioner adamantly denies
DHS’s allegation that she used a false U.S. passport to enter the United States.
Petitioner challenges the reliability of the underlying sworn statement because the
interview was not translated correctly through the interpreter, her statement was not
read to her before signing it, and the DHS officer did not properly administer the
interview. Ultimately, the Immigration Judge regarded the sworn statement as the
most reliable evidence in view of all other testimony, and concluded that DHS met
its burden of proof.
A. Is there substantial evidence in the record to support the Immigration Judge’sfinding that DHS provided “clear and convincing evidence” to remove Mrs.Almendarez under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)? Would a rational trier of fact
be compelled to conclude that the government did not meet its burden?
Petitioner urges a negative answer to the former question, and an affirmative
answer to the latter question.
4
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 13/36
B. Was Mrs. Almendarez’s due process rights violated by the introduction of anunreliable sworn statement rendered without it having been read to her in her language prior to signing, and created after an inadequate investigation? WasMrs. Almendarez substantially prejudiced?
Petitioner urges an affirmative answer to both questions.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. Statement of Facts
Mrs. Almendarez is a native and citizen of Mexico. AR. 94. She cannot
speak, read or write in English. AR. 104. She is married to Mr. Roberto
Almendarez, a U.S. citizen, and has been married to him for twelve years. AR. 94.
Together they reside with their three U.S. citizen children in Texas. AR. 95.
In 1995, Mrs. Almendarez obtained her Mexican passport and entered the
United States with a tourist visa. AR. 97. In 1997, her visa was cancelled while
attempting to enter the United States from Mexico by presenting false paperwork
indicating employment in Mexico. AR. 98-99. Consequently, she remained in
Mexico for approximately two years while her husband visited her. AR. 100. On or
about May 30, 1999, she entered the United States through El Paso, Texas. She
testified that she used a false resident card to enter the United States. AR. 100.
In 2002, Mr. Almendarez filed an immediate relative petition on behalf of his
wife, which was approved on June 24, 2002. AR. 7. Later that year Mrs.
Almendarez filed an application for adjustment of status to a lawful permanent
5
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 14/36
resident based on her husband’s approved petition. Id. DHS subsequently issued its
first interview notice regarding her application scheduled for December 2, 2003.
The notice advised her that, “if you do not speak English, a person (not a family
member), who can act as an interpreter, should accompany you to the Immigration
interview.” AR. 136. Additionally, the notice indicated that the interview was to be
video taped and conducted by Officer Priscilla Dobbins. Id . After she attended her
interview, Mrs. Almendarez had to wait over a year for a decision on her
application; she contacted her Congresswoman to initiate an inquiry on her behalf.
AR. 61.
Upon receiving a congressional inquiry, DHS scheduled a second interview
for January 3, 2005 before Officer Diana Cupp. Because of Mrs. Almendarez’s
inability to speak English she brought her neighbor, Marie Calixto, to the interview
to translate for her. Although Ms. Calixto characterized her Spanish as “somewhat”
fluent, she stated that she does know how to read or write in Spanish. AR. 84. She
learned Spanish from the streets. Id .
On January 3, 2005, Officer Cupp conducted the interview in English and
questioned Mrs. Almendarez regarding the manner of her last entry in May of 1999.
AR. 62-63. Ms. Calixto translated for Officer Cupp and Mrs. Almendarez, but she
did not understand some of the words used by Mrs. Almendarez. AR. 85.
Nevertheless, Officer Cupp created a statement elicited from Mrs. Almendarez’s
6
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 15/36
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 16/36
2006 to determine whether DHS could prove by clear and convincing evidence that
Mrs. Almendarez was deportable under the Section 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) (false claim of
U.S. citizenship) charge. AR. 31, 60. In support of its charge, DHS submitted a
copy of the sworn statement taken in 2005, and called on Officer Cupp and Marie
Calixto as its witnesses. AR. 125-128.
i. Officer Cupp’s testimony regarding the interview on January 3, 2005
On direct examination, Officer Cupp testified that she took the statement from
Mrs. Almendarez on January 3, 2005. AR. 62. Officer Cupp testified that the focus
of the interview was to “explore the fraud” in her case. AR. 63, 65-66. When
conducting interviews, she testified that she would ask a same question in “different
ways…so that [she and the applicant] would be [clear] or both understanding what
was being said.” AR. 67.
Officer Cupp advised that some translators are certified, but usually the
applicant brings someone with them to translate. AR. 63. She stated that she has a
working knowledge of Spanish, and that she always ensures what the translators say
is accurate. AR. 62-63. During the interview, she testified that she heard Mrs.
Almendarez state twice that she used a passport to enter the United States. AR. 67.
During direct-examination, counsel for DHS directed Officer Cupp’s attention
to some “sticky notes” in Mrs. Almendarez’s government file. AR. 68. Counsel
mistakenly believed that the notes belonged to Officer Cupp. Id . Officer Cupp
8
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 17/36
indicated that the notes belonged to Officer Dobbins who conducted the first
interview on December 2, 2003. Id . When asked to review the sticky notes,
Officer Cupp indicated that they were not very legible but was able to make out
some words including “fraudulent passport.”1 Id . She admitted that the sticky notes
were never formalized into a memorandum. AR. 69. She recalled that she saw
Officer Dobbins at a recent “get together” who confirmed that they were Dobbin’s
notes, and that Mrs. Almendarez had indeed made a “false claim”. Id . Further,
Officer Cupp did not know if Officer Dobbins knew any Spanish. AR. 70.
On re-direct examination, Officer Cupp described herself as being very
precise at her work, and that it was important that the sworn statement is reviewed
carefully to ensure accurate communication between her and the applicant. AR. 78.
On cross-examination, Officer Cupp testified she was “99% sure” that there
was no video recording of the first interview conducted by Officer Dobbins. AR.
75. Officer Cupp testified that she, Mrs. Almendarez, and Ms. Calixto were the
only ones present at the second interview during the questioning phase. Id . The
interview was not video or audio recorded. AR. 74. Officer Cupp admitted that she
was not fluent in Spanish. AR. 72. She could not recall if she asked any questions
in Spanish during the interview, but indicated that Ms. Calixto translated her
questions for Mrs. Almendarez to Spanish, and Mrs. Almendarez’s responses to
1 The government did not furnish a copy of these notes to the Petitioner or the Immigration Courtas part of its supporting evidence.
9
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 18/36
English. AR. 73. Officer Cupp stated that she did not keep any notes during the
interview other than the sworn statement. AR. 73. She also testified that she
always leaves the room to allow the translator and the applicant time to review the
statement before the applicant signs it, and that she could not guarantee if Ms.
Calixto actually read the sworn statement to Mrs. Almendarez. AR. 77-79.
ii. Testimony from the translator, Ms. Marie Calixto
Ms. Calixto agreed to translate for Mrs. Almendarez at her interview on
January 3, 2005. AR. 103. Ms. Calixto testified that she is not an employee of
DHS. AR. 84. She never received any formal training or certification for
translation in Spanish. Id . Her highest education is high school. Id . When asked
by the Petitioner’s counsel if she was fluent, she replied, “Somewhat, I guess.” Id .
She also testified that she could neither read nor write in Spanish. Id . She indicated
that she learned Spanish by “hanging around with Spanish people and they would
teach [her] what they know and [she] would pick it up.” Id . She stated that she
never translated for anyone other than Mrs. Almendarez. AR. 85.
When asked whether she understood the Spanish words used by Mrs.
Almendarez during her interview, Ms. Calixto replied, “No, not some of them.” Id .
She indicated that she was not familiar with the translation of “green card”. AR. 86.
She believed that a passport and a green card may be both referenced as
“passaportes” based on her informal Spanish education from “those Spanish guys
10
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 19/36
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 20/36
Mrs. Almendarez testified that she obtained a Mexican passport and acquired
a U.S. tourist visa to enter the United States in 1995. AR. 96-97. She described her
passport as a “book”. Id . She described her tourist visa as a card that read
“passport to the United States.” Id . She perceives a passport and a visa to mean
the same thing, i.e., document used to enter the U.S., but that a green card and a
passport are distinguishable.2 AR. 104-105.
iv. Analysis of the Immigration Judge
The Immigration Judge held that the DHS met its burden of proof, and
consequently entered an order of removal against Mrs. Almendarez based upon the
government’s charge of false claim to U.S. citizenship. AR. 28. After reviewing the
testimony, the Immigration Judge concluded that the sworn statement was the most
reliable evidence with respect to what actually occurred during the second interview,
and “possibly” the first interview. AR. 38. The Immigration Judge reasoned that
the government’s evidence was a true and accurate account of Mrs. Almendarez’s
statements because Officer Cupp was the only party who had any formal training in
Spanish, and her memory of the events were supported with records which were
prepared contemporaneously with the events. Id . With regard to Mrs.
Almendarez’s case, the Immigration Judge described her and Ms. Calixto’s
testimony as “vague” and blamed Mrs. Almendarez’s situation on her misjudgment
2 The term “green card” is often used interchangeably with the term “resident card” to signify a person who has lawful permanent resident status in the United States.12
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 21/36
in selecting the wrong translator. AR. 38-39. The Immigration Judge did not enter
an adverse credibility finding against Mrs. Almendarez.
C. Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Mrs. Almendarez appealed the decision of the Immigration Judge before the
BIA. In a one-page decision, the BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge’s finding that
the sworn statement was “a truthful and accurate record of what happened on
January 3, 2005.” AR. 2. The BIA did not enter any findings regarding Mrs.
Almendarez’s first interview in 2003. Id .
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
DHS failed to provide “clear and convincing evidence” to deport Mrs.
Almendarez for falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen for entry purposes. In support
of its case, DHS submitted a sworn statement from Mrs. Almendarez taken during
an interview in relation to her application for adjustment of status. The statement
indicates that Mrs. Almendarez said she used a “U.S. passport” to enter the United
States. However, the record shows that the sworn statement is completely
unreliable. First, the translator used for translation was incompetent and
misinterpreted Mrs. Almendarez’s statement concerning the actual entry document
used by Mrs. Almendarez. The translator, which was the government’s witness,
testified that she could not understand some of the words used by Mrs. Almendarez.
13
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 22/36
She could not translate the word “green card”, instead referring to it as a
“passaporte”. More critically, the translator failed to read the sworn statement to
Mrs. Almendarez before she signed it. Thus, Mrs. Almendarez was completely
unaware of the contents of her sworn statement. Second, Mrs. Almendarez
provided truthful and consistent testimony about the circumstances of her entry,
stating that she used a pink resident card to enter the United States as opposed to a
U.S. passport. Third, the evidence from the 2003 interview is unreliable because
some of the notes were illegible, Officer Cupp’s testimony regarding such notes was
double hearsay, and no testimony from Officer Dobbins was provided to verify the
information.
Secondly, the government violated Mrs. Almendarez’s due process rights to a
fair trial and proper administration of the sworn statement. The Immigration Judge
impermissibly relied on an invalid sworn statement to deport Mrs. Almendarez when
the statement was inherently flawed. DHS failed to take measures to ensure that
Mrs. Almendarez read her statement before signing it. Furthermore, DHS failed to
conduct an adequate investigation of the facts of her case. Had both been
performed, Mrs. Almendarez would have clarified that she used a resident card, not
a U.S. passport, to enter. Such inaction by the government substantially prejudiced
Mrs. Almendarez in precluding her from advancing her application for adjustment of
status to allow her to remain lawfully in the United States with her family.
14
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 23/36
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY
A. The order of removal is not sustainable because the government failed toprovide clear and convincing evidence that the Petitioner falsely claimedto be a U.S. citizen as described in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii).
The Immigration Judge erroneously held that the sworn statement provided
by DHS was the most reliable account of what Mrs. Almendarez stated during her
interview about the actual document she presented to an immigration officer when
she entered on May 30, 1999. AR. 38; AR. 125-128. The Immigration Judge’s
decision is not supported by substantial evidence on the record. As shown below,
any rational trier of fact would be compelled to conclude that the government failed
to meet its burden of proof to show that Mrs. Almendarez falsely claimed U.S.
citizenship via a false U.S. passport because its evidence was prominently
unreliable.
A foreign national is inadmissible to the United States and subject to removal
under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) if he or she “falsely represents, or has falsely
represented, himself or herself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or
benefit under [the Immigration & Nationality Act] or any other Federal or State
law.”3 With respect to a foreign national subject to removal from the United States,
3 Unlike the provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i)(for willful misrepresentations of materialfact not involving U.S. citizenship), there is no waiver provision which would allow a foreignnational to apply for lawful permanent residence through 8 U.S.C. § 1255 if found to have falsely
15
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 24/36
the government must provide “clear and convincing evidence” that he or she is
deportable as charged.4 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(a). Deportability must be based upon
reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(A).
To meet its burden of “clear and convincing evidence”, DHS relied solely on
a sworn statement taken by Officer Cupp during Mrs. Almendarez’s second
interview in connection to her application for adjustment of status.
1. The uncertified translator misinterpreted the Petitioner’s statementsabout the type of document she used to enter the United States, and
failed to read the sworn statement to the Petitioner in her language.
DHS called Ms. Calixto as one of its witnesses. AR. 125. The sworn
statement, however, is unreliable largely in part because Ms. Calixto did not
properly translate Mrs. Almendarez’s statements to Officer Cupp during the
interview. Her lack of qualifications alone belies her stated level of fluency in
Spanish. She is not a certified translator and never received any formal training in
Spanish. She cannot read or write in Spanish, but learned her Spanish informally
from the streets.
claimed U.S. citizenship on or after September 30, 1996. Thus, the consequences of falselyrepresenting to be a U.S. citizen are considerably harsh, and would statutorily bar an applicantfrom adjusting his status to a lawful permanent resident without recourse.
4 The Immigration Judge correctly identified that DHS carried the burden of proof to show that
Mrs. Almendarez was removable as charged. The burden might have shifted to Mrs. Almendarezif she had been found present without being admitted or paroled in the United States as originallyalleged. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(c). DHS initially mischaracterized her as an alien present in theU.S. without having been admitted. The categorization was in stark contrast to the government’scase which relied on Mrs. Almendarez’s entry into the United States through a falserepresentation; presumably, she was admitted and inspected by an immigration officer irrespectiveto her misrepresentation. Accordingly, the Immigration Judge mandated that DHS prove its caseagainst Mrs. Almendarez.
16
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 25/36
Ms. Calixto testified under oath that she was not familiar with some of the
words used by Mrs. Almendarez during the interview. She indicated that there are
some words that she knows how to translate, but others that she does not. AR. 88.
In particular, she was unfamiliar with the terminology to describe the cards used for
immigration purposes. She stated that she did not know the translation of “green
card” but said she would use “passaporte” to describe it. AR. 88, 91.
The record apparently indicates that Ms. Calixto stated that Mrs. Almendarez
first told her that she used a green card (“But, she told me, you know, just the green
card”). AR. 86. Then she stated that Mrs. Almendarez told her she used a
“passaporte.” This discrepancy in testimony displays a layperson’s
misunderstanding and confusion surrounding the terms used in immigration, or
perhaps, reveals a cultural or linguistic use of a single word conveying multiple
meanings (which discussion is beyond the parameters of this appeal). Whatever the
reason, the Immigration Judge should have weighed Ms. Calixto’s testimony against
the government, not against Mrs. Almendarez. It was DHS’s burden to show that its
evidence is reliable, substantial and probative. By calling Ms. Calixto, the
government intended to substantiate the proper execution of its sole evidence.
Ironically, Ms. Calixto’s testimony called into question the validity of the sworn
statement due to her glaringly defective translation.
It is important to note that Ms. Calixto never mentioned that she heard Mrs.
17
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 26/36
Almendarez describe her passport as a U.S. passport, just a passport or
“passaporte”. Assuming Mrs. Almendarez used the term “passport”, it is possible
that she could have been referring to a Mexican passport. The evidence on the
record does not rise to the level of “clear and convincing evidence” to demonstrate
that she presented an American passport, as opposed to another document.
As seen above, the lapse in Ms. Calixto’s translation resulted in prejudicial
harm to Mrs. Almendarez’s case. The translation was highly ineffective to Mrs.
Almendarez’s detriment; Ms. Calixto was not capable of appreciating or
understanding critical distinctions of immigration entry documents for translation
purposes. Furthermore, the sworn statement is unreliable because it was not read
back to Mrs. Almendarez before she signed it. The statement was in English, and
Ms. Calixto failed to translate the statement which included the incriminating words:
“U.S. passport.” Had Ms. Calixto effectively translated or read the statement, Mrs.
Almendarez would have clarified that she did not enter with a U.S. passport. This
oversight caused Mrs. Almendarez to forever lose her opportunity to apply for
lawful permanent resident status and prevent her deportation, because there is no
statutory provision for waiving a false claim to U.S. citizenship as there is for a
general misrepresentation of material fact. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(iii).
Consequently, she faces an order of deportation tantamount to permanent exile from
her U.S. citizen husband and three American children.
18
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 27/36
2. Mrs. Almendarez’s truthful testimony shows that she entered theUnited States with a resident card instead of a U.S. passport.
Mrs. Almendarez, who cannot speak any English at all, indicated that Officer
Cupp did not speak any Spanish to her during the interview. Mrs. Almendarez
denied using the word “U.S Passport” to describe the manner in which she entered.
She further testified that such term was never read or communicated to her during
the course of the interview. She testified, instead, that she presented a pink resident
card with a photo to the immigration officer, which she had purchased for $200 in
Mexico. She could not recall the name on the card but stated that she discarded it
once she crossed into the United States.
The Immigration Judge did not make an adverse credibility finding against
Mrs. Almendarez but noted her testimony as vague. In review of the record, the
Immigration Judge mischaracterized her testimony by stating that she didn’t know
the difference between a passport and a green card . AR. 37. To the contrary, Mrs.
Almendarez testified that she does in fact recognize the difference between a
passport and a green card. AR. 104. The distinction is important: She perceives a
passport (not specifically a U.S . passport) and a visa (which may mean a tourist visa
and not necessarily a green card ) to essentially mean the same with respect to the
manner in which one may enter the United States.5 AR. 105. Her perception is
5 A reasonable interpretation could be that she perceived those documents to mean the same thing because a foreign national may present both his or her respective passport and a tourist visa19
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 28/36
understandable as she genuinely believed her tourist visa card to signify a
“passport” to the United States. AR. 96.
3. The evidence used from the first interview is unreliable.
The BIA did not expressly rule on the findings regarding the first interview
conducted by Officer Dobbins in 2003. However, the Immigration Judge appeared
to have based his decision partly on the Petitioner’s records stemming from that
interview.
The evidence from the 2003 interview is unreliable and lacks any probative
value. The interview notice clearly advised that it was going to be video taped.
Accordingly, Mrs. Almendarez’s counsel requested a subpoena for a copy of the
video. Yet no video tape of this interview could be found. Instead, the DHS
introduced some illegible sticky notes during direct examination of Officer Cupp
which counsel mistakenly thought belonged to her. Officer Cupp stated that the
notes belonged to Officer Dobbins, who was not called to testify as to the
authenticity or veracity of those notes. Apparently, Officer Cupp learned that the
notes belonged to Officer Dobbins when she ran into her at a recent “get together”.
At this reunion, Officer Dobbins informed her that Mrs. Almendarez made a “false
claim”, but no other details were provided.
The information from Officer Dobbins lacks any specifics on what Mrs.
Almendarez actually stated to her. Moreover, it is unreasonable and unfair to rely
simultaneously when applying for admission into the United States.20
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 29/36
on illegible sticky notes and double hearsay without the benefit of cross-examining
the author of such notes. Absent Officer Dobbin’s testimonial account of her
interview, the information from 2003 is insufficient to support a finding that Mrs.
Almendarez used a false U.S. passport.
Therefore, the government’s information about Mrs. Almendarez’s entry
document in question did not amount to sufficient evidence to support the
Immigration Judge’s finding. Accordingly, this Court must be compelled to hold
that the government failed to meet its high burden of proof by relying solely on an
unsubstantiated and unreliable sworn statement.
B. The Petitioner’s due process right to a fair hearing and properadministration of her statement was violated where the ImmigrationJudge relied on an invalid and procedurally defective sworn statement.
Persons in removal proceedings are entitled to a full due process. “It is well
established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in
deportation proceedings.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993); Accardi v.
Shaugnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954); Montilla v. INS , 926 F.2d 162, 169 (2d Cir.
1991) [“Careless observance by an agency of its own administrative processes
weakens its effectiveness in the eyes of the public because it exposes the possibility
of favoritism and of inconsistent application of the law.”]. Due process challenges
are reviewed de novo. Anwar v. INS , 116 F.3d 140, 144 (5th Cir. 1997). Under the
Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, an alien facing deportation is entitled to a
21
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 30/36
full and fair hearing of her claims and a reasonable opportunity to present evidence
on her behalf. To prevail on such a challenge, a foreign national must make "an
initial showing of substantial prejudice." Id .
Officer Cupp testified that the purpose of this interview was to investigate
fraud in Mrs. Almendarez’s manner of entry. She described her interview style as
precise and thorough. She stated that she always ensures that the translation is
accurate and that she repeats her questions in different ways to avoid any confusion
between her, the translator, and the applicant.
Yet, a review of the record would show anything but a precise and thorough
interview. DHS carries the responsibility, as professed by Officer Cupp, to carefully
execute its duties to the public by ensuring proper and effective communication with
an applicant pursuing an immigration benefit. Such responsibility is particularly
heightened where family unity is jeopardized because of the applicant’s past actions.
As Officer Cupp rightly noted, the government will always seek to provide the
benefit. But it must act careful in its review and procurement of an applicant’s
statements which may constitute an impediment to receiving such benefit, especially
where it could result in a life-time separation from the applicant’s family.
Here, Mrs. Almendarez’s interest at stake is to remain in the United States
with her husband and three children and to avoid living apart from them forever. In
view of those interests, DHS failed to take appropriate measures to ensure that the
22
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 31/36
sworn statement, which contained incriminating evidence, was read to Mrs.
Almendarez in her own language to establish a true and accurate record of her
statement. Such lapse in procedure renders the statement invalid and defective, and
thereby diminishing the government’s assurance that it will abide by its procedures.
Considering the magnitude of her case, DHS also failed to inquire as to whether
Mrs. Almendarez had in fact used a U.S. passport in light of information that would
have prompted any reasonable fact finder to conduct further inquiry about the
document in question. The statement was just over a page long containing only
thirteen questions. When the need for clarification was obvious, Officer Cupp just
accepted the translator’s initial statement of “U.S. passport” at face value. She
failed to ask about the type, color, size, or shape of the document used by Mrs.
Almendarez, and failed to repeat pertinent questions in a different manner to clarify
the document used for entry (like the manner in which she described). She did not
keep any notes about her investigation other than Mrs. Almendarez’s statement.
Although she testified that she heard Mrs. Almendarez use the word “passport”
twice, the sworn statement shows that she framed her subsequent questions using
the term “U.S. passport” within the question without first establishing that Mrs.
Almendarez had in fact used a U.S. passport.6
6 Officer Cupp accepted the translator’s description of “US Passport” at face value withoutfurther clarification:
Q: (Officer Cupp): On what date and by what means did you next enter the UnitedStates?
A: (Mrs. Almendarez): I had the problem with the visa at the Consulate and then came in23
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 32/36
Mrs. Almendarez was substantially prejudiced by not having her statement
read to her, and by the manner in which her interview was conducted. With respect
to the applicability of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii), the difference between using a
U.S. passport and “green card” is a matter of one’s immigration life or death.
Presenting a false U.S. passport to an immigration officer would preclude an
applicant to waive such inadmissible ground based on family unity reasons. See 8
U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(iii). In contrast, presenting a false permanent resident card
would not negate the applicant from seeking a waiver for the misrepresentation
based on qualifying family member. Id . Thus, an erroneous classification of the
underlying fraudulent document could forever bar an otherwise admissible applicant
from applying for lawful permanent residence. Here, Mrs. Almendarez faces
deportation and a life-time bar to reenter the United States and remain with her
family as a legal resident.
Accordingly, it offends due process and notions of fundamental fairness to
deport Mrs. Almendarez based on a statement rendered without the benefit of
having it been read to her in a language she understands, or having it read to her
(period). It is akin to signing a confession for a crime implicating a life sentence
without fully knowing its contents. Despite Officer’s Cupp professed rigor in
to the US in 1999 with a US passport. [Translation by Ms. Calixto].Q: (Officer Cupp): Did you successfully enter the United States with a US passport after being inspected at a port of entry, and [if] so, where?A: (Mrs. Almendarez): Yes, I was inspected and came into the United States at El Paso inMay 1999. [Translation by Ms. Calixto].
24
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 33/36
ensuring proper fact finding, no meaningful effort was ever made to uncover the real
facts of her entry.7 To reiterate, Mrs. Almendarez’s handicap is her language barrier
which essentially put her at the complete mercy of the government officer and
translator. Had DHS effectively investigated the facts or ensured that the sworn
statement was read back to her in Spanish, Mrs. Almendarez would have clarified
and explained that she used a resident card, not a U.S. passport, and thus, allowing
her to apply for lawful resident status in conjunction with a waiver for her
misrepresentation.
Succinctly put, the sworn statement is fundamentally defective to support the
Immigration Judge’s finding. Therefore, use of this evidence by the government
violates Mrs. Almendarez’s due process right to a fair hearing and her right to a
proper and careful administration of a sworn statement, especially where the
government seeks to elicit incriminating evidence in guise of an adjustment
interview.
7 A period of almost two years lapsed between her first and second interview with no sign of anyinvestigation.
25
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 34/36
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, PETITIONER PRAYS FOR
REVERSAL of the BIA’s order and remanding for further proceedings on
Petitioner’s application for adjustment of status. Petitioner prays generally for relief.
Respectfully submitted,
Nicolas “Nick” Chavez, Esq.Attorney at LawChavez & Gallagher, LLP10830 N. Central Expy.Suite 400Dallas, TX 75231Tel: (214) 251-8011Fax: (214) 251-8021
October 28, 2007
26
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 35/36
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 29th day of October, 2007, two copies of theforegoing Brief, and one 3.5 inch diskette containing a PDF formatted copy of theforegoing Brief were served upon the following parties via overnight courier service:
Office of Immigration LitigationCivil DivisionU.S. Department of JusticeP.O. Box 878Ben Franklin StationWashington, D.C. 20044
________________________ Nicolas ChavezAttorney for Petitioner
27
8/14/2019 Brief 5th Cir Almendarez
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-5th-cir-almendarez 36/36