Ninth Circuit Reverses Adverse Credibility Finding Rooted in Translation Difficulties

The Ninth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by an Angolan opposition-party activist and his family, holding that the agency's adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence because it rested on trivial inconsistencies and disjointed testimony attributable to translation difficulties rather than any lack of veracity.

The Court held that minor variations in describing the exact location of an injury sustained during a chaotic police attack, an ambiguous asylum-application phrase that did not actually contradict later testimony, and apparent nonresponsiveness that instead reflected the petitioner's evident confusion amid garbled interpretation could not support an adverse credibility finding under the totality of the circumstances. The Court also held the agency committed legal error in denying CAT relief by overlooking country-conditions evidence tying the petitioner's political party membership to a particularized risk of torture and by failing to recognize that his family's months spent in hiding did not show a viable option for internal relocation.

The full text of Mbueno-Vita v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/28/24-5472.pdf

Ninth Circuit Finds Faulty Translation Violated Non-Citizen's Right to Counsel

The Ninth Circuit has determined that a non-citizen’s right to counsel was violated when an interpreter translated his right to counsel as the right to “hire” an attorney. “Considering these circumstances, Valdivias’s right to counsel was effectively lost in translation by the interpreter’s repeated use of the Spanish word for ‘hire’ in describing that right. This suggested that Valdivias could enjoy the privilege of being represented only if he could pay for an attorney. But as the statutory and regulatory scheme make clear, Valdivias had the right to be represented by a pro bono attorney if he could locate one; and, indeed, he was entitled to a list of lawyers, organizations, and referral services willing to help him obtain pro bono representation.” “Because Valdivias was allowed to proceed pro se without having validly waived his right to counsel, his removal proceedings violated due process.”

The full text of U.S. v. Valdivias-Soto can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/08/09/20-10415.pdf