Opinion ID: 2977846
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidentiary Rulings and Due Process

Text: Immigration proceedings are not subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence. Hassan v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2005). The IJ “may receive in evidence any oral or written statement that is material and relevant to any issue in the case previously made by the respondent or any other person during any investigation, examination, hearing, or trial.” 8 C.F.R. § 1240.7(a); Dallo v. INS, 765 F.2d 581, 586 (6th Cir. 1985). And, “we review evidentiary rulings by IJs only to determine whether such rulings have resulted in a violation of due process.” Hassan, 403 F.3d at 435-36 (“Fifth Amendment guarantees of due process extend to aliens in [removal] proceedings, entitling them to a full and fair hearing.”). The IJ did not err in admitting into evidence the Notice of Termination and supporting interview notes. The BIA correctly found that both were “clearly relevant and material.” Bekhit was -5- No. 08-4154 Bekhit v. Holder appealing the USCIS’s decision to terminate his permanent resident status. To determine whether the USCIS properly denied the petition, it was appropriate for the IJ to admit and consider its decision as well as the underlying reasons. See 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(3)(D). The BIA also correctly found that Bekhit could not challenge the reliability of the Notice of Termination or interview notes on appeal because his counsel did not object to their reliability at the hearing. See Gill v. Gonzales, 127 F. App’x 860, 863 (6th Cir. 2005) (finding that the petitioner was bound by the representation of his counsel to the IJ). Even though Bekhit’s counsel objected to the admission of the documents at a master calender hearing, he did not object to their admission or reliability at the merits hearing when given the opportunity to do so. The BIA correctly found that Bekhit was not denied due process of law and that he “received a full and fair hearing on the merits of his claim.” Even though he alleged error, he failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the claimed violations. The IJ did not reference or rely on the interview notes in reaching his conclusion, relying instead on Bekhit’s testimony and immigration petitions. At the removal hearing, Bekhit did not object to the admission or reliability of the interview notes, dispute any of the information included in the interview notes, or request to crossexamine the interviewer. Further, his testimony supported, rather than contradicted, the contents of the interview notes. Thus, the admission of the interview notes was not “fundamentally unfair.” See Alexandrov v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 395, 406-07 (6th Cir.2006) (“[W]here a hearsay document is admitted but not primarily relied upon and the petitioner receives the opportunity to rebut the document’s conclusions through his witnesses, the fundamental fairness of the proceedings has not -6- No. 08-4154 Bekhit v. Holder been impinged.”). As a result of his failure to show prejudice, his due process claims must fail. See Warner v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 534 539 (6th Cir. 2004). PETITION DENIED. -7-