Interim Decision #2521 

MATTER OF DAVILA. 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-21419729 

Decided by Board August 23, 1976 

(1) In order to establish respondent's deportability as an overstay, the Service introduced, over the objections of counsel, a Form 1-213 (Record of Deportable Alien), a 

Form 1-214 (Warning as to Rights) and a fingerprint card relating to respondent. The 

Form 1-213 bore the same name and Alien Registration Number as the order to show 

cause issued respondent; the Form 1-214 was signed by respondent and indicated she 

had been advised of her rights and had voluntarily waived them. Na evidence was 

adduced at the hearing to indicate that the Forms 1-213 and 1-214 did not relate to 

respondent or were in any way incorrect, or that the statements given by respondent 

were not given voluntarily_ 

(2) A respondent in deportation proceedings has no right to refuse to testify except on a 

reasonable claim of privilege under the Fifth Amendment. Remaining in this country 

longer than permitted is not a criminal offense. Respondent made no showing that there 

was any basis for a claim of Fifth Amendment privilege and there was no constitutional 

basis for her refusal to testify. 

(3) In the absence of any proof that Forms 1-213 and 1-214 relating to respondent contain 

information which was incorrect or obtained by coercion or force, these forms are 

inherently trustworthy and would be admissible even in court as an exception to the 

Hearsay Rule as public records or reports as provided in Rule 803(8) of the Federal 

Rules of Evidence. 

(4) Since the respondent's deportability was proven at the hearing by untainted evidence 

which was clear, convincing, and unequivocal, even assuming a defect in the arrest 

procedure, it would be of no consequence in this deportation proceeding. 

CHARGE: 

Order: Act of 1952 —Section 241(a)(2) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)}—Nonimmigrant visitor-

-remained longer 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Bert D. Greenberg, Esquire 

8484 Wilshire Boulevard 

Beverly Hills, CA 90211 

The respondent appeals from the immigration judge's decision of 

October 1, 1975. Theimmigration judge found the respondent deportable as charged, granted her 14 days voluntary departure, and entered 

an alternate order providing for the rcIsponclent's deportation to Peru. 

The appeal will be dismissed. 

781 
Interim Decision #2521 

On appeal, the respondent contends, in effect, that her deportability 

has not been established by clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence. 

According to her, all the evidence in the record was produced as a result 

of her arrest; that arrest was unlawful; and, therefore, the evidence 

should have been suppressed. 

At the hearing before the immigration judge, the respondent identified herself by name, and counsel stipulated that the order to show 

cause related to her. Through counsel, she denied all the allegations in 

the order to show cause and her deportability as charged. Thereafter, 

on Fourth and Fifth Amendment grounds, she refused to answer any 

questions on the issues of alienage and deportability. Her later testimony was confined to a motion to suppress and to her application for 

voluntary departure. The immigration judge determined that her refusal to testify on constitutional grounds was unjustified. 

In the order to show cause it was charged that the respondent was 

subject to deportation as an overstay. Remaining in this country longer 

than permitted does not constitute a criminal offense. A respondent in 

deportation proceedings has no right to refuse to testify except on a 

reasonable claim of privilege under the Fifth Amendment. Otherwise, 

the immigration judge may direct the respondent to testify. ChavezRaya v. INS, 519 F.2d 397 (C.A. 7, 1975); Laqui v. INS, 422 F.2d 807, 

809 (C.A. 7, 3.970). Counsel stated in his brief that the respondent had 

entered the United States as a visitor. No showing was made that there 

was any basis for a claim of. Fifth Amendment privilege. Thus, there 

was no constitutional basis for the respondent's refusal to testify. 

To establish alienage and deportability the Service introduced, over 

the objections of counsel, a Form 1-213, Report of Deportable Alien, a 

Form 1-214, Warning as to Rights, and a fingerprint form. The Form 

1-213 bears the same name and Alien Registration number as the order 

to show cause. It reflects birth in Peru and entry into the United States 

on November 30, 1972• as a visitor. The Form 1-214 is signed "Elba 

Davila". It warns the alien of her rights, including the right to advice of 

counsel; it also reflects that she understood her rights and voluntarily 

waived them. The respondent did not deny that these documents related to her, and no offer of proof was made that they are in any way 

incorrect, or that the information they contained was not given voluntarily. 

In the absence of any proof that the Forms 1-213 and 1-214 contain 

information which is incorrect or which was obtained by coercion or 

force, we find that these forms are inherently trustworthy and would be 

admissible even in court as an exception to the hearsay rule as public 

records and reports. Fed. Rules of Evid., Rule 803(8). See Matter of 

Swissair "Flight SR 168," 15 I. & N. Dec. 372 (BIA. 1975). 

In view of Lae identity of name and Alien Registration number on the 

782 
Interim Decision #2521 

order to show cause and the Form 1-213, the respondent's duty to 

testify, and her burden to show time, place, manner of entry into the 

United States pursuant to section 291, Immigration and Nationality 

Act, we conclude that alienage and deportability were established at the 

deportation hearing by untainted evidence which is clear, unequivocal, 

and convincing. Thus, because the respondent's deportability was 

proved by sufficient evidence at the hearing, even if we were to assume 

a defect in the arrest procedure, it would be of no consequence in this 

deportation proceeding. U.S. ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149 

(1923); La Franca v. INS, 413 F.2d 686, 689 (C.A. 2, 1969); Vlissidis v. 

Anadell, 262 F.2d 398, 400 (C.A. 7, 1959). 

Accordingly, the following order will be entered. 

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 

Further order: Pursuant to the immigration judge's order, the respondent is permitted to depart from the United States voluntarily 

within 14 days from the date of this order or any extension beyond that 

time as may be granted by the district director; and in the event of 

failure so to depart, the respondent shall be deported as provided in the 

immigration judge's order. 

783