Whether the Court of Appeals imposed an incorrect standard for granting a certificate of appealability in conflict with Supreme Court precedent

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Mr. Serna demonstrated below that linguistic and cultural barriers prevented him from understanding the Miranda warning and that timely consulate intervention would have protected his rights such that he would not have waived his Miranda rights. Yet, both the District Court and the Court of Appeals denied a certificate of appealability. Both courts failed the test for determining the issuance of a certificate. “The standard for granting a certificate of appealability is low.” Frost v. Gilbert, 835 F.3d 883, 888 (9th Cir. 2016). A petitioner need only demonstrate “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2). He need only show that “reasonable jurists could debate whether .. . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Mr. Serna did so without a doubt. As a result, the denial of a certificate of appealability violates Mr. Serna’s Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and a fair trial. As such, the question presented is as follows: 1. Whether the Court of Appeal imposed a certificate of appealability standard in conflict with Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); and Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. __, 137 S.Ct. 759, 773 (2017) when it denied a certificate after petitioner demonstrated “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2)? i