De Nankervis v. Barr, 010920 FED9, 17-71163

Docket Nº:17-71163
Party Name:LESLY C. DE NANKERVIS, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judge Panel:Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TASHIMA and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:January 09, 2020
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

LESLY C. DE NANKERVIS, Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-71163

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

January 9, 2020

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Argued and Submitted November 13, 2019 San Francisco, California

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A089-358-327

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TASHIMA and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[*]

Lesley De Nankervis petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision denying her motion to terminate removal proceedings and denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition.

1. De Nankervis contends that her removal proceedings should be terminated because the government coercively interrogated her and her minor daughters in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(vii). While the manner in which the two minor children in this case were interrogated is troubling, considering the totality of the circumstances, there is insufficient evidence to show that the government overstepped the bounds of § 287.8(c)(2)(vii). See Blanco v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 714, 721 (9th Cir. 2008); Bong Youn Choy v. Barber, 279 F.2d 642, 646- 47 (9th Cir. 1960).

2. The government did not violate 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c) by failing to advise De Nankervis of her right to an attorney prior to interrogating her. Under our precedent, because De Nankervis had not yet been served with a Notice to Appear, the government was not required to advise her of her right to an attorney. See Samayoa-Martinez v. Holder, 558 F.3d 897, 901-02 (9th Cir. 2009).

3. Because of the lengthy history of De Nankervis's removal proceedings, two different Immigration Judges (IJs) presided over different parts of her case. Although some of the first IJ's actions at De Nankervis's initial merits hearing raise concerns as to whether he improperly assisted the government's case, these actions do not rise to the level of a due process violation. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971-72 (9th Cir. 2000)...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP