Interim Decision #2346 

MATTER OF LOPEZ 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-12198436 

Decided by Board February 20, 1975 

(1) Service charged respondent was deportable under section 241(a)(11) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Respondent admitted alienage and identity. 'The Service 

offered into evidence copies of an information and of a judgment and commitment 

relating to conviction for possession of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. 844(a), of an 

individual with same name as respondent. The documents were certified to be true 

copies of the original, and bore the signature of the deputy clerk of court, and the raised 

seal of the court. This certification complies with the requirements of 8 CFR 287.6 

(2) The identity of names between respondent and the person whose record Of conviction 

was introduced into evidence permit an inference to be drawn that the documents 

related to the respondent. Respondent did not attempt to show the record of conviction 

did not relate to him. Thus, the evidence of deportability is clear, convincing, and 

unequivocal and the decision of the immigration judge is correct 

CIIAnGIS: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(11) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(11)]—Convinced of violation of 

law; to wit: Title 21 U.S.C. 844(a), possession of marijuana. 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT; 

Juan Rocha, Jr., Esquire 

1028 Connecticut Ave., N.W. 

#1007 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Attorney of record: 

Luis M. Segura, Esquire 

712 San Antonio Savings Bldg. 

San Antonio, Texas 78205 

ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

Paul C. Vincent 

Appellate Thal Attorney 

The alien respondent has appealed from the . September 17, 1973 

decision of an immigration judge which ordered the respondent deported from the United States. The appeal will be dismissed. 

The respondent is a native and citizen of Mexico who was admitted to 

the United States as an immigrant in 1961. The Service alleges that the 

respondent is deportable under section 241(a)(11) of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act as an alien who has been convictd of a crime relating 

to the illicit possession of marijuana. 

183 
Interim Decision #2346 

During the course of the hearing, the respondent conceded all the 

factual allegations in the order to show cause except the allegation 

relating to the conviction. As to this allegation, the respondent asserted 

a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. 

The Service offered into evidence copies of an information and of a 

judgment and committment relating to the conviction, for possession of 

marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. 844(a), of an individual with the same 

name as the :respondent. Counsel for the respondent objected to the 

introduction of these two items of proof on the ground that the Service 

had not laid the proper foundation for their admission into evidence. On 

appeal, counsel specifically challenges the manner in which the documents were aithenticated. 

The certification appearing on each of the documents reads "A true 

copy of the original, I certify." This is followed by the signature of the 

deputy clerk of the court. Each document also bears the "raised seal" of 

the court embossed upon the certification. We hold that this certification 

complies with the requirements of 8 CFR 287.6. 

Counsel errs in contending that Rule 44 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure governs the manner in which official records must be proved 

in deportation proceedings. Matter of McNeil, 11 I. & N. Dec. 378, 384 

(A.G. 1965). Moreover, we have held that a copy of a record of conviction arising out of a criminal action in a court in the United States is 

admissible in the absence of a specific certification by the clerk of the 

court that he is the custodian of the records. See Matter of Gutnick, 13 

I. & N. Dec. 412, 416 (BIA 1969). The clerk of a court in the United 

States may be presumed to be the legal custodian of the records in his 

office. See Mcroon v. INS, 364 F.2d 982, 984 (C.A. 8, 1966). 

Counsel does not allege that these records relate to someone other 

than the respondent. Their admission into evidence was proper. Cf. 

United States v. Merrick, 464 F.2d 1087 (C.A. 10, 1972), cert. denied, 

409 U.S. 1023 (1972). 

The identity of names between the respondent and the person whose 

record of conviction appears in evidence permits the inference to be 

drawn that the conviction relates to the respondent. The respondent has 

made no attempt to show that this conviction does not relate to him. We 

find that the evidence of deportability is clear, convincing and unequivocal. See Matter of Cheung, 13 I. & N. Dec. 794 (BIA 1971). 

The decision of the immigration judge was correct. 

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 

184