Gilda Peralta-Gonzalez; H.S.P. v. Merrick B. Garland, Unite States Attorney General

Denver, Colorado Guatemala citizen unsuccessfully tried to represent herself in effort to remain in the United States.



On February 15, 2019, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) served

Notices to Appear (NTA) on petitioners. The NTAs charged that they were subject

to removal from the United States because they (1) were not citizens or nationals of

the United States; (2) were natives and citizens of Guatemala; (3) had arrived in the

United States at or near El Paso, Texas, on or about February 13, 2019; and (4) had

not been admitted or paroled after inspection by an Immigration Officer. The NTAs

ordered them to appear before an IJ at the immigration court in Denver, Colorado at a

date and time to be set. Petitioners were later served a notice that their initial hearing

would be held on April 25, 2019, at the Denver immigration court.



Petitioners appeared at the April 25 hearing without counsel. A Spanish

language interpreter was provided for them at this and subsequent IJ hearings. The IJ

informed them that they had "the right to be represented by an attorney or qualified

representative,” but would need to pay for the attorney and to find counsel on their

own. R. at 148. She noted that the clerk had provided them with a list of legal

service providers, who might be able to help them if they could not afford an

attorney. But if they did not retain counsel, they would have to represent themselves.

She also informed them of their right to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, or

petitioners' filings, the daughter is identified as having "J.” as her first initial, see,

e.g., R. at 10, 16; Pet'rs Br. at 1, 2.

protection under the Convention Against Torture. Finally, she advised them that if at

any time they moved, they must submit a change-of-address form to the court within

five days of moving. The court instructed them to return for the next hearing on May

23, 2019.



At the May 23 hearing, the court advised petitioners concerning the

requirements for an asylum claim. She then asked Ms. Peralta-Gonzalez if she had

contacted the attorneys on the free legal service provider list. Ms. Peralta-Gonzalez

responded that she had "called two,” that "[t]hey said they were not available,” and

that she hadn't called anyone else. R. at 156. She also said she had not contacted

any private attorneys. The hearing proceeded without petitioners being counseled.

During the hearing, Ms. Peralta-Gonzalez admitted the allegations in the NTA and

the IJ found that petitioners were removable as charged.



The IJ then asked if Ms. Peralta-Gonzalez had a fear of returning to her home

country and she responded that she did. The IJ verified she had received an asylum

application form and informed her that she must bring the form, completed in

English, to her next hearing on July 25, 2019, "no matter what.” Id. at 163. If she

did not, the IJ informed her, then "the court [would] consider it abandoned, or given

up.” Id. Ms. Peralta-Gonzalez indicated she understood.



The IJ then asked if Ms. Peralta-Gonzalez had any questions, and she

responded she had "issues due to money in order to be able to afford a lawyer” but

she had "family in Florida, who can help me afford an attorney.” Id. She requested a

change of venue. The IJ denied the request because she had not yet moved to

Appellate Case: 24-95154



Florida. She instructed Ms. Peralta-Gonzalez that once she did move, she would

need to file a change of address form along with evidence of her new address, such as

a letter from a family member "saying you're going to be living with them and they'll

be supporting you.” Id. at 164. The IJ would then consider the DHS's position

concerning the request for a change of venue before deciding whether to grant it. In

the meantime, proceedings would continue in Colorado.



Prior to the July 25 hearing, on July 8, 2019, Ms. Peralta-Gonzales submitted a

change-of-address form showing she had moved to Florida. But she appeared at the

July 25 hearing in Denver without a lawyer and without a completed asylum form.

Ms. Peralta-Gonzalez explained that she had been unable to complete the form due to

financial difficulties, because the lawyers she spoke to would have charged her $300

per hour to fill out the form. Id. at 167. She acknowledged that the IJ had told her

she would need to complete and file the form at the hearing whether or not she had an

attorney. The IJ asked her why she had not attempted to work with a friend, a clinic,

or free legal service providers to complete the form. Ms. Peralta-Gonzalez responded

that she had "looked, but nobody wanted to take responsibility,” and she "couldn't

get a lawyer.” Id. at 168.



The IJ asked the DHS how it wished to move forward. Counsel indicated DHS

would like to see the application abandoned due to a lack of effort and for the sake of

consistency. Ms. Peralta-Gonzalez indicated she understood the government's

position, but asked, if possible, for a "second chance” to complete and submit the

form. Id. at 169. The IJ denied the request, stating that she had been "clear at the

last hearing that you must file your application today, or that I would find that it was

given up or abandoned,” and that "I apply that rule the same way to everybody in my

courtroom, and I cannot apply it differently for one person or for another.” Id.

at 169. The IJ held that she had abandoned her right to apply for asylum.



Ms. Peralta-Gonzalez reiterated that she had been unable to file her application for

economic reasons. The IJ stated she understood, then issued her decision, finding

that Ms. Peralta-Gonzalez had waived her right to apply for asylum or other relief,

which had been abandoned, and ordering petitioners removed to Guatemala.

After the IJ announced her decision, she asked if Ms. Peralta-Gonzalez had

any questions. Ms. Peralta-Gonzalez responded she wanted to let the court know she

had moved to Florida. After consulting the file, the IJ indicated the court had her

current address, in Florida. She also advised Ms. Peralta-Gonzalez concerning the

procedure for filing an appeal.



Ms. Peralta-Gonzalez then obtained pro bono counsel, who filed an appeal to

the BIA on her behalf.2 In the appeal, petitioners challenged the IJ's denial of a

continuance, her denial of a change of venue, the sufficiency of the NTA to vest the

immigration court with jurisdiction, and their placement on an expedited docket

designed for families seeking asylum. The BIA concluded the arguments were

without merit and dismissed the appeal.



* * *

Petition for review denied.