N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT VER ONIC A ANTOINETTE M OREHEAD, AKA M onique Pe tric e Hightowe r, Pe t i tione r, v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-72224 Age n c y No. A057-555-427 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

April 9, 2019 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TASHIM Aand PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KATZM ANN, *** Judge .



# FIL ED APR 30 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2)(C ).

* * * The Honora

ble Ga ry S. Katz m a

nn, Judge of the Unite d Stat e s C ourt of Inte rnationa l Tra de , sitting by de signa tion.Ve ronic a Antoine tte M ore he a d , a

native and c itiz e n of Ja

m a ic a , pe titions for re vie w of a

de c ision by

the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) dism issing he r a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision tha t found he r re m o va

ble a s c ha rge d a nd orde re d he r re m ove d to Ja m a ic a . M ore he a d se e k s re lie f on the grounds tha

t the IJ viola

t e d he r due proc e ss rights by a dm itting docum e nts tha t ha d not be e n prope rly

a uthe ntic ate d

and without re quiring a dditiona l te stim ony from c e rta in witne sse s. She a lso c ha lle nge s he r re m o va b i lity on suffic ie nc y

of the e vide nc e grounds. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. B e c a use the B IA a dopte d a

nd a ffirm e d the IJ’ s de c ision with a c ita tion to Matte r of Burbano , 20 I. & N. De c . 872 (B IA 1994), whilea lso a dding its own re a soning, were vie w both theIJ a nd B IA de c isions. Se e C

ruz Re ndon v . Holde r , 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th C ir. 2010). W e re vie w de novo the B IA’ s de t e rm ination of c onstitutiona l a n d le ga l que stions, inc l uding c la im s of due proc e ss viola tions, se e id. , a

nd we re vie w a

ny a dm inistra

tive findings of fa c t

for substa

n t ia l e vide n c e , m e aning we uphold the a ge nc y ’ s findings unle s s the e vide nc e c om pe ls a c ontra

ry re sult, se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(4)(B ); C

ui v . Holde r , 712 F.3d 1332, 1336 (9th C ir. 2013). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w.

21. The IJ’ s a dm i ssion of a n d re l ia nc e on the pa ssport a

pplic ation, FB I ra p she e t, a nd doc ke t she e t re lating to M onique Pe tric e Hightowe r did not viola te M ore h e a d’ s due proc e s s rights. The “ sole te st” gove rning thea dm ission of e vide nc e in de porta

tion proc e e dings is “

whe the r the e v ide nc e is proba tive and its a dm ission is funda

m e nta lly fa ir.” Espinoza v . IN S , 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th C ir. 1995), as ame nde d

on de nial of re h’g

(Apr. 7, 1995). As to a

uthe ntic ation spe c ific a lly , the Ninth C irc uit ha s he ld tha t “ im m igration form s [m

u st] be a uthe ntic ate d through some re c ogniz e d proc e dure , suc h a s those re quire d by [De pa rtm e nt of Hom e la

nd Se c urity ] re gula

tions or by

the Fe de ra l R

ule s of C ivil Proc e d ure .” Id. at

309–10. W e have c la

rifie d tha t the proc e dure s se t forth in the Fe de ra l R ule s of Evide nc e m ay

a lso be use d to a

uthe ntic ate doc um e nts in im m igration proc e e dings. Se e Vaty an v . Muk a se y , 508 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th C ir. 2007). He re , the IJ c onside re d va rious ite m s of e vide nc e be fore c onc luding tha t the c onte ste d doc um e nts we re a uthe ntic , i.e ., tha

t the y we re what

the gove rnm e nt purporte d the m

to be : doc um e nts tha

t re late d to M ore he a d e ve n though the y

bore the H ightowe r nam e . The IJ re lie d on the following e v ide nc e in c onc luding tha t the d oc um e nts c ould be linke d to M ore he a d: (1) a finge rprint m at c h be twe e n the prints subm

itte d by M ore he a d a s pa

rt of he r 2008 na

tura liz ation a

pplic ation a

nd the 3prints ta

ke n whe n “ M onique Pe tric e Hightowe r” wa s a rre s te d a n d c ha rge d in 2000 in C a lifornia ; (2) a p h oto, whic h the IJ une quivoc a lly found wa s of M ore h e a d, tha t wa s subm itte d with the1999 pa ssport a pplic ation unde r Hightowe r’ s na m e ; (3) a photo tha t a c c om pa nie d a n offic ia l doc um e nt from

the Ja m a i c an C onsta

bula ry in the n am e of Ve ronic a

Antoine tte M ore he a d ; and (4) the listing of W ayne M ore h e a d a s a

c ousin a nd c onta c t pe rson on the1999 pa ssport a pplic at ion in Hightowe r’ s na

m e , a nd a s a spouse in the 2004 visa

a pplic ation a

nd 2008 natura liz ation a

p plic ation in M o re he a d’ s na m e . The IJ’ s c onside ration of this ev ide nc e c onform e d to the proc e dure for a uthe ntic ation se t forth in Fe de ra l R u le of Evide nc e 901. Se e Vaty an , 508 F.3d a t 1184 (e xpla ining tha

t R ule 901 “ a llows the. . . c ourt to a d m it e vide nc e if suffic ie nt proof ha s be e n introduc e d so tha t a re a sona ble [fa c t-finde r] c o uld find in fa vor of a uthe ntic ity ” ); c

f . Unite d State

s v . W hitw orth , 856 F.2d 1268, 1282–83 (9th C ir. 1988) (finding tha

t the distric t c ourt ha d sa

tisfie d R ule 901(a )’ s a

uthe ntic at ion sta nda rd in a c rim ina l c a se whe re the judge e xam ine d doc um e nts a nd c om p are d the i r c o nte nts to other known fa c ts to c onc lude tha t the y we re a uthore d by

the de fe nda n t). As a re sult, the IJ’ s finding of a uthe ntic ity

not only wa s supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e , but a lso sa tisfie d our re quire m e nt tha t “ im m i gration form s be a uthe ntic ate d through some re c ogniz e d proc e dure .” Espinoza , 45 F.3d a t 309. 4Unde r the se c irc um sta nc e s, a nd be c a use M o re he a d did not provide any e v ide nc e unde rm ining thedoc um e nts’ trustworthine ss or a uthe ntic ity , the IJ wa s not re quire d to a dduc e te stim ony from e xpe rts or othe r witne sse s , a nd the a dm ission of the d oc um e nts wa s funda m e nta lly fa i r. Se e id. at 310; Trias-He r nande z v . IN S , 528 F.2d 366, 370 (9th C ir. 1975). 2. M ore he a d’ s re l ate d a rgum e nt tha

t due proc e ss re quire d

the gove rnm e nt to produc e suc h witne sse s in orde r to provide he r the opportunity to c onfront a

nd “ c ross-e xam i ne the witne sse s a ga inst he r” is a lso una va iling. Unlike in C hing and Baliza , the gove rnm e nt he re did not introduc e any a ffidavits or doc um e nts c onta ining te stim o ny of “ witne sse s a g a inst” M ore he a d. Se e C hing v . May ork as , 725 F.3d 1149, 1153, 1158–59 (9th C ir. 2013); Baliza v . IN

S , 709 F.2d 1231, 1232–34 (9th C ir. 1983). M ore o ve r, be c a use M ore he a d did not pre s e nt a ny e vide nc e c o ntra dic ting theinform ation in or a uthe ntic i ty

of the gove rnm e nt’ s proffe re d doc um e n t s, the IJ wa s not re quire d to pe rm it suc h c ross-e xam ination. Se e Espinoza , 45 F.3d a

t 311 (“ Alie ns in deporta

tion proc e e dings m ay

not a sse rt a c ross-e xam ination right to preve nt the gove rnm e nt from e sta blishing unc onte ste d fa c t s.” (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). 3. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports e a c h of the thre e inde pe nde nt ba se s on whic h M ore he a d wa s found to beina dm issibleat the tim e she e nte re d the Unite d 5Stat e s in 2005, making he r re m ova ble a s a n “ a lie n who a

t the tim e of e ntry or a djustm e nt of sta

tus wa s within one

or m ore of the c la s se s of a lie ns ina dm issible by the la w e xisting a

t suc h tim e .” 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a )(1)(A). First, substa ntia l e vide nc e supporte d the finding tha t M ore he a d wa s ina dm issibleunde r 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(6)(C )(ii) for ha v ing fa lse ly

re pre s e nte d he rse lf to be a Unite d State s c itiz e n to obta in a

be ne fit, be c a

use the IJ found tha

t M o re he a d file d

a pa s sport a pplic ation in 1999, in whic h she fa l se ly

c l a im e d to be a

c itiz e n . As the B IA note d, “ a pa ssport is c le arly

a ‘ b e ne fit’ unde r the im

m igration la

ws.” Matte r of Barc e nas-Barre ra , 25 I. & N. De c . 40, 44 (B IA 2009). In a ddition, substa

ntia l e vide nc e supporte d the finding tha t M ore he a d wa s ina d m issibleunde r § 1182(a )(6)(C )(i) for having m isre pre se nte d a m ate ria l fa c t in orde r to proc ure a dm ission into the Unite d State s, be c a

use the FB I ra

p she e t showe d tha

t M ore he a d ha d lie d in he r 2004 visa a pplic ation a

bout ha ving ne ve r be e n to the Unite d State s a nd ha ving ne ve r be e n a

rre ste d , c ha

rge d, or c onvic te d of a c rim e . Fina lly , substa

ntia l e vide nc e supporte d the finding tha t M ore he a d wa s ina d m issibleunde r § 1182(a )(7)(A)(i)(I) for not having be e n in posse ssion of a va lid e ntry

doc um e nt, be c a

use the m isre pre se ntations in her 2004 visa a pplic ation re nde re d void a

b initio the

visa tha t M ore h e a d

use d to e nte r the Unite d State s in 2005. Se e K

y ong Ho Shin v . Holde r , 607 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th C ir. 2010) 6(e xpla ining tha t unde r Ninth C i rc u it pre c e de nt, “ a ll gra nts of [le g a l pe rm ane nt re side nt] sta

tus tha t we re not in substa

ntive c om plia nc e with theim

m igrat ion la

ws [are ] void a

b initio” (c i tation omitte d)). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

7