Opinion ID: 687091
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Authentication of the I-213

Text: 13 Lopez also argues that the I-213 should not have been admitted into evidence because it was not properly authenticated. Although civil deportation hearings are not governed by strict rules of evidence, Baliza v. INS, 709 F.2d 1231, 1233 (9th Cir.1983), INS forms must be authenticated to be admissible. E.g., Chung Young Chew v. Boyd, 309 F.2d 857, 866-67 (9th Cir.1962). We find that the I-213 establishing Lopez's deportability was properly authenticated. 14 In Iran v. INS, 656 F.2d 469, 472 n. 8 (9th Cir.1981), we listed three examples of acceptable means of authentication. Under either 8 C.F.R. Sec. 287.6 or Rule 44, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a document is admissible if evidenced by an official publication of the document or by a copy attested to by either the officer with legal custody over the document or the officer's deputy. The INS may also authenticate a document through any procedure comporting with common law rules of evidence. Iran, 656 F.2d at 472 n. 8. 15 In this case, the INS produced both the original I-213 and a copy certified by the INS district director. Moreover, Castillo identified the I-213 as the form he completed when he interviewed Lopez. See Tejeda-Mata v. INS, 626 F.2d 721, 724 (9th Cir.1980) (authenticity of I-213 established by officer's identification of form as one prepared by him), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 994 (1982). 16 Lopez's sole contention with regard to the I-213's authenticity is that the INS failed to show that she provided the information on the form. However, Castillo testified that he obtained the information in the I-213 from Lopez and inserted it himself. He was present and subject to cross-examination. In any event, Lopez's argument relates to the weight of the document, not its admissibility.