IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-60294

Summary Calendar

MAYRA AIDE HOLGUIN-MENDOZA, also known as Mayra Ayde HolguinMendoza,

Petitioner

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A077 784 353

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mayra Aide Holguin-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 

for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing 

her appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of cancellation of removal 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. Holguin-Mendoza maintains that she was denied due 

process on multiple grounds at the removal hearing. We have jurisdiction to 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 27, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-60294 Document: 00514172864 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/27/2017
No. 16-60294

2

review constitutional claims and questions of law, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), 

and review de novo claims of due process violations, see Ogbemudia v. INS, 988 

F.2d 595, 598 (5th Cir. 1993). 

Holguin-Mendoza argues that the IJ erred by allowing the admission of 

a Form I-213, a Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, which set forth that 

she twice was apprehended at the border attempting to smuggle aliens into the 

United States. She maintains that the form was inaccurate hearsay and was 

introduced without proper notice. 

The test for the admissibility of evidence offered in a removal proceeding 

is whether the evidence is probative and whether “its use is fundamentally fair 

so as not to deprive the alien of due process of law.” Bustos-Torres v. INS, 898 

F.2d 1053, 1055 (5th Cir. 1990). A Form I-213 is presumed to be trustworthy 

and admissible, unless there is evidence that it contains information that is 

incorrect or was obtained by coercion or duress. Matter of Barcenas, 19 I. & N. 

Dec. 609, 611 (BIA 1988).

Holguin-Mendoza did not dispute the contents, creation, or reliability of 

the Form I-213. Instead, she confirmed at the removal hearing that the form, 

which was probative, correctly described her alien smuggling attempts. Given 

that she has not shown that the Form I-213 was inaccurate or unreliable, she 

has not established that its admission was erroneous or fundamentally unfair. 

See Bustos-Torres, 898 F.2d at 1056; Matter of Barcenas, 19 I. & N. Dec. at 61. 

To the extent that the form, which was used as impeachment evidence, was 

belatedly offered, but cf. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) (providing an exception 

to disclosure requirements where record is for impeachment purposes), 

Holguin-Mendoza has not shown a violation of fundamental fairness or an 

effect on her ability to address the form’s contents or to present her case. See 

Bustos-Torres, 898 F.2d at 1055.

 Case: 16-60294 Document: 00514172864 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/27/2017
No. 16-60294

3

Moreover, Holguin-Mendoza maintains that the IJ violated due process 

by denying her right to cross-examine the officer who prepared the Form I-213. 

However, a Form I-213 may be admitted without the chance to cross-examine 

its drafter if there is no indication that the form is inaccurate or untrustworthy. 

See Bustos-Torres, 898 F.2d at 1055-56; see also Olabanji v. INS, 973 F.2d 1232, 

1234 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1992) (noting that an alien may not assert a right to crossexamination to prevent the Government from proving uncontested facts). 

Because Holguin-Mendoza has not shown that the Form I-213 was erroneously 

drafted or otherwise is unreliable, she has not established that there was a 

need to cross-examine the form’s drafter. Likewise, because she failed to 

identify any error in the form, she has not established that she was affected by 

an inability to cross-examine the preparer. See Olabanji, 973 F.2d at 1234 n.1. 

Holguin-Mendoza additionally argues that the IJ improperly allowed her 

to be examined about the alien smuggling incidents even though the matters 

were outside the scope of direct examination. To the extent that this argument

is based solely on a purported violation of the Federal Rules of Evidence, it is 

unavailing because the rules of evidence do not apply in a removal proceeding. 

See Bouchikhi v. Holder, 676 F.3d 173, 180 (5th Cir. 2012). The examination

about the incidents otherwise regarded issues reflected in Holguin-Mendoza’s 

application for relief and her testimony to the IJ. Also, the incidents implicated 

the credibility of Holguin-Mendoza’s representations – in the application and 

her testimony to the IJ – as to her prior entries and departures and her past

arrests. The record additionally supports that Holguin-Mendoza was afforded

a full and fair hearing and was not deprived of fundamental fairness. See id. 

at 180; Bustos-Torres, 898 F.2d at 1055.

The petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 16-60294 Document: 00514172864 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/27/2017