Case ID: f-appx_360/html/0818-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Juan Armando LIMON-GUERRERO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-74730.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 28, 2009.
    Todd Becraft, Law Office of Todd Be-craft, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Walter Manning Evans, Esquire, Trial, Jennifer L. Lightbody, Esquire, Anh-Thu P. Mai-Windle, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Armando Limon-Guerrero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order finding that he knowingly participated in alien smuggling in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(l)(E)(i). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and due process claims, and for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

Limon-Guerrero’s due process rights were not violated by admission of the Form 1-213 (Record of Deportable/Inad-missible Alien) because the form was probative and its admission was not fundamentally unfair, and where the preparing officer testified at the hearing regarding the preparation of the form. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310-11 (9th Cir.1995) (noting that “[t]he sole test for admission of evidence [in a deportation proceeding] is whether the evidence is probative and its admission is fundamentally fair,” and rejecting argument that a Form 1-213 is inadmissible as hearsay); Trias-Hernandez v. INS, 528 F.2d 366, 369 (9th Cir.1975) (“Hearsay is admissible in administrative proceedings, which need not strictly follow conventional evidence rules.” (citation omitted)).

Contrary to Limon-Guerrero’s contention, the BIA correctly placed the burden on the government to demonstrate remov-ability by clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence, cf. Hernandez-Guadarrama v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2005), and substantial evidence supports its determination that Limon-Guerrero is removable for engaging in alien smuggling.

Limon-Guerrero’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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