Opinion ID: 1188766
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Canadian Record of Conviction

Text: Uppal contends that the documents concerning his ง 268 conviction were not properly authenticated under 8 C.F.R. ง 287.6(d), which states that official records issued by a Canadian government entity must be evidenced by a certified copy of the original record attested by the official having legal custody of the record or by an authorized deputy. We have held that ง 287.6 provides one, but not the exclusive, method for establishing a sufficient basis for admission of a [document] in a [removal] proceeding. Iran v. INS, 656 F.2d 469, 472 n. 8 (9th Cir.1981). Nevertheless, the method of authentication used must, at a minimum, satisfy due process, id. at 472, and Uppal contends that his due process rights were denied here. Uppal has never disputed the fact of his conviction; nor has he ever contended that the documents contain false or erroneous information. He simply argues that the documents were not authenticated in accordance with the requirements of ง 287.6(d), that he was denied an opportunity to cross-examine government witnesses about the documents, and that these errors constitute a due process violation. We disagree. Assuming Uppal is correct that the Canadian records were improperly certified and that he should have been given the opportunity to cross-examine government witnesses relevant to those documents, Uppal's due process argument fails because he has not shown that he was prejudiced by the asserted errors. On the contrary, Uppal concedes that [i]t is undoubtedly true that the IJ would have rendered the same decision, finding the Petitioner removable as charged, if the IJ had held a hearing on the disputed documents and allowed Uppal the chance to cross-examine the government's witnesses before deciding whether to admit them. Because Uppal has not made any argument that his proceeding might have gone differently had he been able to cross-examine the government's witnesses, see Cano-Merida, 311 F.3d at 965, we deny his due process challenge on this point.