NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAN 10 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
KAREN MARTOYAN; et al., No. 07-70227
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A077-849-717
A077-849-718
v. A077-849-719
A077-849-720
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent. MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted December 7, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: NOONAN, BERZON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Karen Martoyan (“Martoyan”) and his family, natives and citizens of
Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1252. We evaluate the IJ’s adverse credibility determinations for substantial
evidence, Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2010), and have
jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Martoyan failed to establish
extraordinary circumstances excusing the untimely filing of his asylum application.
See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2010).
The transcript of Martoyan’s hearing is replete with both translation and
transcription problems. Inadequate translation made it difficult for Martoyan to
answer questions and clarify perceived inconsistencies. And transcription
problems make us question whether the record fairly represents the proceedings
before the agency. “It is long-settled that a competent translation is fundamental to
a full and fair hearing.” Perez-Lastor v. INS, 208 F.3d 773, 778 (9th Cir. 2000).
Deportation proceedings violate due process if the alien demonstrates that a better
translation would have made a difference in the outcome of the hearing. Acewicz
v. INS, 984 F.2d 1056, 1063 (9th Cir. 1993). Martoyan failed to exhaust his
translation-related due process claim before the BIA and he has failed to make any
claim based on inadequate transcription. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203,
1207-08 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3272 (2010). However,
“[e]ven where there is no due process violation, faulty or unreliable translations
can undermine the evidence on which an adverse credibility determination is
2
based.” He v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 593, 598 (9th Cir. 2003). Whether due to poor
translation or poor transcription, we are unable to meaningfully review the
transcript of the evidentiary hearing and cannot determine whether the IJ’s adverse
credibility determinations are supported by substantial evidence.
Accordingly, we grant the petition and remand to the agency to reassess
Martoyan’s credibility in the first instance after a new hearing and determine his
eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. See Hartooni
v. INS, 21 F.3d 336, 343 (9th Cir. 1994); Garrovillas v. INS, 156 F.3d 1010, 1017
(9th Cir. 1998).
PETITION GRANTED; REMANDED.
3