Case ID: f-appx_258/html/0931-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ruben Rangel Rangel CASTANEDA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-75993.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 3, 2007.
    
    Filed Dec. 10, 2007.
    Ruben Rangel Rangel Castaneda, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer L. Light-body, Esq., Mark C. Walters, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ruben Castaneda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order adopting and affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(E)® for alien smuggling. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations. Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

Contrary to Castaneda’s contention, the IJ did not violate his right to due process by admitting the government-prepared forms where Castanenda did not provide credible evidence casting doubt on their reliability. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir.1995) (holding that a government-prepared form is admissible where alien produces no probative evidence casting doubt on its reliability). Likewise, Castaneda’s inability to cross-examine the border patrol agent does not constitute a due process violation because Castaneda provided no credible evidence against which the content of the forms could be weighed. Id. at 311.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.