Opinion ID: 694919
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Authentication and Admissibility of Form I-213

Text: 8 Sanchez-Moreno contends that the Form I-213 should not been admitted because it was not properly authenticated and hearsay. In addition, she contends that the IJ was required permit cross-examination of the form's preparer. These contentions lack merit.
9 Authentication of government forms, which serves to establish a chain of custody for government records, is required in deportation proceedings in order to satisfy due process. Iran v. INS, 656 F.2d 469, 472 (9th Cir.1981). Immigration forms may be authenticated through some recognized procedure, such as those required by INS regulations or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir.1995). 10 In Espinoza, we held that certification of a Form I-213 by an INS district director conformed to Fed.R.Civ.P. 44 and to 8 C.F.R. Sec. 287.6(a), and, thus, satisfied the due process requirement set forth in Iran. Id. Here, the Los Angeles INS Acting District Director certified Sanchez-Moreno's Form I-213. Therefore, Sanchez-Moreno's contention that her Form I-213 was improperly authenticated lacks merit. See id.
11 Administrative proceedings are not bound by strict rules of evidence. Baliza v. INS, 709 F.2d 1231, 1233 (9th Cir.1983). In the context of a deportation hearing, the only limitation upon its procedure is that a hearing, though summary, be fair. Id. (quotation omitted). Thus, hearsay evidence may be admitted if the evidence is probative and its admission is fundamentally fair. Trias-Hernandez v. INS, 528 F.2d 366, 369 (9th Cir.1975). 12 In Trias-Hernandez, we held that a Form I-213 is probative on the issue of entry, and its admission is fair absent evidence that the statements are not those of the petitioner or that they were the result of coercion. Id. More recently, we held that a Form I-213 was admissible because information on an authenticated immigration form is presumed to be reliable in the absence of evidence to the contrary presented by the alien. Espinoza, 45 F.3d at 311. 13 Here, although Sanchez-Moreno initially contended to the BIA that the statements contained on the Form I-213 were obtained through coercion, she has dropped this contention in the instant petition. She did not, moreover, present any evidence at the deportation hearing which suggested that the statements on the Form I-213 either were not her own, or that they were unreliable. In fact, the information on the Form I-213 is virtually identical to the information contained on the Form I-256A, Sanchez-Moreno's application for suspension of deportation, including her name, date and place of birth, physical description, date and place of entry into the United States, and the number and nationality of her children. Thus, Sanchez-Moreno's contention that the Form I-213 contained inadmissible hearsay lacks merit. See id.
14 The IJ was not required to permit cross-examination of the Form I-213's preparer. Espinoza, 45 F.3d at 311 (where we have a government document in which a government agent simply has noted a person's alienage, presumably from information out of the alien's mouth, the government agent cannot be presumed to be an unfriendly witness or other than an accurate recorder). Moreover, [e]stablishing an automatic right to cross-examine the preparers of such documents would place an unwarranted burden on the INS. Id. Therefore, Sanchez-Moreno's contention lacks merit. 15