Background
Maria Tercero-Bautista, a native and citizen of Guatemala, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Her claims were denied by an Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals. She petitioned for review, arguing jurisdictional defects, exhaustion issues, and due process violations related to translation services and lack of counsel.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. It found the asylum claim time-barred for failing to file within one year of entry. Regarding jurisdiction, the court held that a missing date or time in the initial Notice to Appear did not deprive the court of authority when a subsequent notice was provided and the petitioner appeared. The court found the argument regarding Matter of Fernandes unexhausted. It held that challenges to withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture relief were forfeited because the petitioner did not contest the dispositive grounds relied upon by the agency. On due process, the court found no fundamental unfairness in the denial of continuances for counsel, the interpreter’s performance, or the Immigration Judge’s demeanor, as the petitioner failed to show how these issues affected the outcome.
The dissent
In my view, where deficient translation services at a pro se applicant’s merits hearing are evident from the face of the transcript, we should presume the applicant suffered prejudice.
Paez
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the strict one-year filing deadline for asylum claims and clarifies that jurisdictional challenges based on Notice to Appear defects are limited when subsequent notice is provided. It also maintains the high burden for pro se litigants to prove that translation errors or lack of counsel fundamentally altered the fairness of the proceeding.