Opinion ID: 1348648
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Compelled Testimony

Text: At the beginning of his hearing, Barradas admitted NTA allegations (1)-(3) and denied allegation (4). The IJ then admitted evidence, including the Form I-213 and criminal complaint, and asked the government if it wanted to examine Barradas. Barradas objected to all questioning. His counsel explained, I think it's the Government's burden. I don't think [it] can meet [its] burden by questioning him in this hearing. The government countered that if Barradas declined to testify, it would ask the IJ to take the reports it had submitted into full consideration. The IJ then stated that the respondent has no right to stand mute at this particular time. If he does, I will draw an adverse inference from that.... It's not improper to have him examined.... Barradas then took the stand, the IJ administered the oath to him through an interpreter, and the government began asking questions. At no further point did Barradas attempt to remain silent or otherwise make an effort to avoid answering questions related to alien smuggling; his counsel only objected to the government's questions about unrelated domestic violence incidents. Barradas does not dispute that the IJ is permitted to draw adverse inferences from silence in civil immigration proceedings. Indeed, both parties agree that under BIA precedent, a respondent in an immigration proceeding confronted with evidence of his deportability leaves himself open to adverse inferences from his silence. In re Guevara, 20 I. & N. Dec. 238, 241-42 (B.I.A.1990). Barradas also recognizes that the BIA views this principle as one of burden-shifting: if the government establishes a prima facie case for removability, then the burden shifts to the respondent. See In re Vivas, 16 I. & N. Dec. 68, 69 (B.I.A.1977) ([N]otwithstanding the requirement of clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence to establish deportability, a respondent may properly be required to go forward with evidence to rebut prima facie showings by the [DHS].). Barradas's only contention here is that the government never made its requisite prima facie showing. He claims that the IJ's threat to make an adverse inference was an improper infringement of due process in his case because the government did not meet its initial burden of removability before the IJ made the statement. Specifically, he argues that the government did not satisfactorily prove the existence of his conviction for alien smuggling. Our question then is whether the government's evidence, before Barradas testified, established his convictionand consequent removabilityclearly, convincingly, and unequivocally. If it did, then the IJ would have been permitted to draw an adverse inference from Barradas's silence and Barradas's due process argument on this point must fail. If the government did not make a prima facie showing, then the IJ's statement may be viewed as impermissibly compelling Barradas to testify. Here, we find that the government adequately satisfied its burden to demonstrate Barradas's removability before the IJ made his adverse inference statement. Although Barradas's testimony corroborated and clarified the information contained in the documentary evidence, it was not a required complement to the government's prima facie case. See Cabral-Avila v. INS, 589 F.2d 957, 959 (9th Cir.1978) (The immigration judge correctly decided that the petitioners were required to rebut the finding of deportability due to the admission of the I-213 forms. Once the forms have been properly admitted, the [government's] prima face case of deportability is made.). We cannot reverse the order of the BIA unless we find that the evidence compels the conclusion that the BIA ruled incorrectly, Rosendo-Ramirez, 32 F.3d at 1087, and the evidence in this case simply does not compel such a conclusion.