NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 21a0314n.06
Case No. 20-4263
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jul 06, 2021 ANGELINA DOMINGO-MATEO; MATEO ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk EDUARDO PEDRO-DOMINGO, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW Petitioners, ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION v. ) APPEALS ) MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, ) Respondent. ) OPINION
BEFORE: COLE, ROGERS, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
COLE, Circuit Judge. Angelina Domingo-Mateo and her six-year-old son applied for
asylum and withholding of removal. After hearing testimony from Domingo-Mateo, the
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied their applications, concluding that they did not demonstrate past
persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed. Domingo-Mateo and her son
subsequently brought this petition, arguing that they were denied a full and fair hearing in violation
of the Due Process Clause because Domingo-Mateo’s interpreter was inadequate and the IJ
exhibited bias and hostility. We disagree and accordingly deny the petition for review.
I.
Domingo-Mateo and her six-year-old son are natives of Guatemala. The Department of
Homeland Security filed a Notice to Appear against Domingo-Mateo in May of 2015, alleging that
she was present in the United States without being lawfully admitted. In response, the petitioners Case No. 20-4263, Domingo-Mateo, et al. v. Garland
applied for asylum and withholding of removal. Domingo-Mateo asserted that in 2013, her
neighbor was killed by masked gang members after refusing to pay them money. She further
explained that the same gang members had knocked on her door on four occasions, presumably to
extort money from her as well. Domingo-Mateo asserted that her cousin Mathias Lopez had been
sending her money, and that, but for her relations with her cousin, she would not have been targeted
for extortion. As a result, she claimed that she feared the gang members would torture or kill her
and her son if she returned to Guatemala.
At her first appearance before an IJ, Domingo-Mateo stated that her best language is
Akateko. The IJ then held a total of three Master Hearings on October 2, 2015, February 1, 2016,
and May 18, 2016. One was conducted with a Kanjobal interpreter and the other two with Spanish
interpreters. After a stay, Domingo-Mateo’s Individual Hearing was held on September 28, 2018,
before a new IJ. This hearing was held with a Kanjobal interpreter. The IJ instructed the interpreter
to make sure he and Domingo-Mateo understood each other. The interpreter responded, “Yes,
Your Honor, we understand each other.”
During the hearing, the IJ continuously had to ask Domingo-Mateo to answer the questions
more directly. At one point, she stated, “Ma’am, yes or no. You have to listen to the question and
answer it yes or no.” Later, she inquired “Ma’am, you’re not answering the question. You’re just
saying whatever it is you think you need to say. Your lawyer is going to ask the question again,
and you will please answer it directly. Do you understand my instructions?” During this part of
the testimony, the IJ also separately told Domingo-Mateo, “Comply with my request, please,” and
“Ma’am, just answer the question that was asked. Don’t add anything.”
In response to these inquiries, the petitioners’ counsel asked the IJ if she could “inquire
whether [Domingo-Mateo] is understanding the interpreter.” The IJ reminded counsel that she
-2- Case No. 20-4263, Domingo-Mateo, et al. v. Garland
had confirmed they understood each other when the hearing started, to which counsel responded,
“I understand.” The IJ then further told counsel that just “because you’re not getting the answers
you want doesn’t mean that you’re going to challenge this interpreter in this language.” Counsel
then asked Domingo-Mateo, “[a]re you understanding the questions that I’m asking?” She
responded with a yes.
At the end of the hearing, the IJ denied the application, concluding that the petitioners did
not demonstrate past persecution. The IJ reasoned that “there is no evidence that the one time two
masked men knocked on [Domingo-Mateo’s] door had anything to do with the fact that Mathias
Lopez was [her] cousin or that the men knocked on [her] door because he was sending [her]
money.” The IJ further noted that the masked men “did not threaten [her] or [her] son ever,” she
has six family members living safely in Guatemala, and there is no evidence that she reported the
masked men’s behavior to the police. The BIA affirmed the decision, concluding that the
petitioners received a full and fair hearing in front of the IJ. Domingo-Mateo and her son then
brought this petition for review.
II.
Under the Fifth Amendment, Domingo-Mateo and her son have a “due process right to a
full and fair hearing” as a part of their immigration proceedings. Amadou v. I.N.S., 226 F.3d 724,
726 (6th Cir. 2000). That right may be violated if the IJ “cannot be said to have fairly considered
the evidence presented by the petitioners.” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 398 F.3d 722, 725 (6th Cir. 2005).
Here, the petitioners allege that they were denied a full and fair hearing in violation of the Due
Process Clause in two ways. First, they argue that the interpreter, who did not speak Domingo-
Mateo’s native dialect, was incompetent. Second, they argue that the IJ exhibited bias and hostility
towards Domingo-Mateo. “[W]e review decisions by immigration judges on matters of removal
-3- Case No. 20-4263, Domingo-Mateo, et al. v. Garland
for Fifth Amendment due process violations de novo.” Id. (citation omitted). With that, we address
each argument in turn.
A. INCOMPETENT INTERPRETER
If asylum seekers do not understand English, we have held that their due-process right to a
full and fair hearing includes a competent interpreter. Amadou, 226 F.3d at 726; Alhousseini v.
Sessions, 751 F. App’x 674, 677 (6th Cir. 2018). To demonstrate that the interpreter was
incompetent, the petitioners must show both inadequacy in the translation and that this inadequacy
resulted in prejudice. See Popovych v. Holder, 470 F. App’x 446, 452–53 (6th Cir. 2012).
On appeal, the petitioners argue that the interpreter was incompetent by pointing to five
alleged problems at the Individual Hearing: (1) The court scheduled a Kanjobal interpreter when
Domingo-Mateo’s native dialect is Akateko; (2) the IJ did not properly identify and confirm
Domingo-Mateo’s language and dialect at the hearing; (3) the IJ did not confirm directly that
Domingo-Mateo understood the interpreter; (4) Domingo-Mateo’s counsel became concerned that
her client was not understanding the interpreter yet was discouraged from inquiring; and (5) the
record does not demonstrate that the IJ administered the Interpreter’s Oath to Domingo-Mateo’s
interpreter. Yet the petitioners do not argue that these alleged errors resulted in prejudice.
We need not analyze whether the petitioners establish translation errors because they have
not met their burden to show prejudice. To demonstrate prejudice, the petitioners must establish
that the IJ’s conclusion “relate[d] to the translation errors.” Gishta v. Ashcroft, 121 F. App’x 585,
591 (6th Cir. 2005).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 21a0314n.06
Case No. 20-4263
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jul 06, 2021 ANGELINA DOMINGO-MATEO; MATEO ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk EDUARDO PEDRO-DOMINGO, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW Petitioners, ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION v. ) APPEALS ) MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, ) Respondent. ) OPINION
BEFORE: COLE, ROGERS, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
COLE, Circuit Judge. Angelina Domingo-Mateo and her six-year-old son applied for
asylum and withholding of removal. After hearing testimony from Domingo-Mateo, the
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied their applications, concluding that they did not demonstrate past
persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed. Domingo-Mateo and her son
subsequently brought this petition, arguing that they were denied a full and fair hearing in violation
of the Due Process Clause because Domingo-Mateo’s interpreter was inadequate and the IJ
exhibited bias and hostility. We disagree and accordingly deny the petition for review.
I.
Domingo-Mateo and her six-year-old son are natives of Guatemala. The Department of
Homeland Security filed a Notice to Appear against Domingo-Mateo in May of 2015, alleging that
she was present in the United States without being lawfully admitted. In response, the petitioners Case No. 20-4263, Domingo-Mateo, et al. v. Garland
applied for asylum and withholding of removal. Domingo-Mateo asserted that in 2013, her
neighbor was killed by masked gang members after refusing to pay them money. She further
explained that the same gang members had knocked on her door on four occasions, presumably to
extort money from her as well. Domingo-Mateo asserted that her cousin Mathias Lopez had been
sending her money, and that, but for her relations with her cousin, she would not have been targeted
for extortion. As a result, she claimed that she feared the gang members would torture or kill her
and her son if she returned to Guatemala.
At her first appearance before an IJ, Domingo-Mateo stated that her best language is
Akateko. The IJ then held a total of three Master Hearings on October 2, 2015, February 1, 2016,
and May 18, 2016. One was conducted with a Kanjobal interpreter and the other two with Spanish
interpreters. After a stay, Domingo-Mateo’s Individual Hearing was held on September 28, 2018,
before a new IJ. This hearing was held with a Kanjobal interpreter. The IJ instructed the interpreter
to make sure he and Domingo-Mateo understood each other. The interpreter responded, “Yes,
Your Honor, we understand each other.”
During the hearing, the IJ continuously had to ask Domingo-Mateo to answer the questions
more directly. At one point, she stated, “Ma’am, yes or no. You have to listen to the question and
answer it yes or no.” Later, she inquired “Ma’am, you’re not answering the question. You’re just
saying whatever it is you think you need to say. Your lawyer is going to ask the question again,
and you will please answer it directly. Do you understand my instructions?” During this part of
the testimony, the IJ also separately told Domingo-Mateo, “Comply with my request, please,” and
“Ma’am, just answer the question that was asked. Don’t add anything.”
In response to these inquiries, the petitioners’ counsel asked the IJ if she could “inquire
whether [Domingo-Mateo] is understanding the interpreter.” The IJ reminded counsel that she
-2- Case No. 20-4263, Domingo-Mateo, et al. v. Garland
had confirmed they understood each other when the hearing started, to which counsel responded,
“I understand.” The IJ then further told counsel that just “because you’re not getting the answers
you want doesn’t mean that you’re going to challenge this interpreter in this language.” Counsel
then asked Domingo-Mateo, “[a]re you understanding the questions that I’m asking?” She
responded with a yes.
At the end of the hearing, the IJ denied the application, concluding that the petitioners did
not demonstrate past persecution. The IJ reasoned that “there is no evidence that the one time two
masked men knocked on [Domingo-Mateo’s] door had anything to do with the fact that Mathias
Lopez was [her] cousin or that the men knocked on [her] door because he was sending [her]
money.” The IJ further noted that the masked men “did not threaten [her] or [her] son ever,” she
has six family members living safely in Guatemala, and there is no evidence that she reported the
masked men’s behavior to the police. The BIA affirmed the decision, concluding that the
petitioners received a full and fair hearing in front of the IJ. Domingo-Mateo and her son then
brought this petition for review.
II.
Under the Fifth Amendment, Domingo-Mateo and her son have a “due process right to a
full and fair hearing” as a part of their immigration proceedings. Amadou v. I.N.S., 226 F.3d 724,
726 (6th Cir. 2000). That right may be violated if the IJ “cannot be said to have fairly considered
the evidence presented by the petitioners.” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 398 F.3d 722, 725 (6th Cir. 2005).
Here, the petitioners allege that they were denied a full and fair hearing in violation of the Due
Process Clause in two ways. First, they argue that the interpreter, who did not speak Domingo-
Mateo’s native dialect, was incompetent. Second, they argue that the IJ exhibited bias and hostility
towards Domingo-Mateo. “[W]e review decisions by immigration judges on matters of removal
-3- Case No. 20-4263, Domingo-Mateo, et al. v. Garland
for Fifth Amendment due process violations de novo.” Id. (citation omitted). With that, we address
each argument in turn.
A. INCOMPETENT INTERPRETER
If asylum seekers do not understand English, we have held that their due-process right to a
full and fair hearing includes a competent interpreter. Amadou, 226 F.3d at 726; Alhousseini v.
Sessions, 751 F. App’x 674, 677 (6th Cir. 2018). To demonstrate that the interpreter was
incompetent, the petitioners must show both inadequacy in the translation and that this inadequacy
resulted in prejudice. See Popovych v. Holder, 470 F. App’x 446, 452–53 (6th Cir. 2012).
On appeal, the petitioners argue that the interpreter was incompetent by pointing to five
alleged problems at the Individual Hearing: (1) The court scheduled a Kanjobal interpreter when
Domingo-Mateo’s native dialect is Akateko; (2) the IJ did not properly identify and confirm
Domingo-Mateo’s language and dialect at the hearing; (3) the IJ did not confirm directly that
Domingo-Mateo understood the interpreter; (4) Domingo-Mateo’s counsel became concerned that
her client was not understanding the interpreter yet was discouraged from inquiring; and (5) the
record does not demonstrate that the IJ administered the Interpreter’s Oath to Domingo-Mateo’s
interpreter. Yet the petitioners do not argue that these alleged errors resulted in prejudice.
We need not analyze whether the petitioners establish translation errors because they have
not met their burden to show prejudice. To demonstrate prejudice, the petitioners must establish
that the IJ’s conclusion “relate[d] to the translation errors.” Gishta v. Ashcroft, 121 F. App’x 585,
591 (6th Cir. 2005). Here, the IJ denied the petitioners’ application because she concluded that
they did not demonstrate past persecution. Specifically, the IJ explained that there was no evidence
of a connection between the gang members knocking on Domingo-Mateo’s door and her cousin
sending her money; the gang members never directly threatened her or her son; she has six family
-4- Case No. 20-4263, Domingo-Mateo, et al. v. Garland
members currently living safely in Guatemala; and she never reported the gang behavior to law
enforcement. Nowhere do the petitioners allege that any of these conclusions were wrong or
misrepresented Domingo-Mateo’s intended testimony. Therefore, “there is little potential that a
translation error affected [the IJ’s] finding.” Popovych, 470 F. App’x at 453; see also Gishta,
121 F. App’x at 591–92; Thapa v. Holder, 572 F. App’x 314, 319 (6th Cir. 2014); Kruze v. Lynch,
615 F. App’x 857, 866 (6th Cir. 2015). Because the petitioners have not demonstrated prejudice,
they cannot establish a due-process violation.
B. BIAS AND HOSTILITY
The Due Process Clause also entitles asylum seekers “to an unbiased arbiter who has not
prejudged their claims.” Ahmed, 398 F.3d at 725. But during immigration proceedings, an IJ has
“quasi-judicial powers to control the pace of the hearings, and to focus the hearings on relevant
matters.” Ivezaj v. I.N.S., 84 F.3d 215, 220 (6th Cir. 1996), superseded on other grounds by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. And we have held that during such hearings, the IJ does not violate the
Constitution by acting in ways that could be characterized as “no nonsense.” Id. Indeed,
“‘expressions of impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance, or even anger’ do not amount to bias”
under the Due Process Clause. Preducaj v. Holder, 379 F. App’x 508, 510 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555–56 (1994)). To establish a due-process violation
resulting from bias and hostility, the petitioners must demonstrate “both error and substantial
prejudice.” Id. (quoting Garza-Moreno v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 239, 241 (6th Cir. 2007)).
The petitioners argue that the IJ limited Domingo-Mateo’s testimony, instructed her to only
provide yes or no answers in some instances, and reprimanded her when she tried to explain her
answers in more depth. But these statements cited by the petitioners demonstrate the IJ’s seeking
clarity on Domingo-Mateo’s testimony, requesting that she answer the question asked and cabin
-5- Case No. 20-4263, Domingo-Mateo, et al. v. Garland
her answers to be more responsive to those questions. And although “the language the IJ employed
could have been more artful,” there is no indication or allegation that the IJ acted “as a partisan
adjudicator seeking to intimidate [Domingo-Mateo] and [her] counsel.” Hassan v. Gonzales,
403 F.3d 429, 436–37 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Reyes-Melendez v. I.N.S., 342 F.3d 1001, 1007 (9th
Cir. 2003)). Without more, the petitioners cannot demonstrate that they were deprived of due
process. See id.
III.
We deny the petition for review.
-6-