Narrative Opinion Summary
In this immigration case, a petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ) removal order. Jurisdiction was exercised under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, with the court applying substantial evidence review to factual determinations and de novo review to legal and due process claims. The petitioner challenged the admission of Form I-213 as evidence and alleged due process violations. Relying on established precedent, the court upheld the IJ’s decision to admit the form, noting the petitioner failed to provide probative evidence of its unreliability. The court further held that the due process claim was unsubstantiated, as the petitioner did not demonstrate error or prejudice, particularly under the standard set forth in Colmenar v. INS. The IJ’s finding that the petitioner aided in the illegal entry of another alien was supported by substantial evidence, rendering the petitioner statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status and certain waivers under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(d)(11) and 1182(a)(6)(E)(i). The petition for review was therefore denied, and the opinion was designated as non-precedential pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Admissibility and Reliability of Form I-213subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court confirmed that Form I-213 was properly admitted as evidence, requiring the petitioner to provide probative evidence challenging its reliability, consistent with established precedent.
Reasoning: The IJ correctly admitted Form I-213, as established in Espinoza v. INS, where the alien must provide probative evidence to challenge its reliability.
Due Process Claims in Immigration Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that a due process violation is not established without a showing of error or prejudice, and found that petitioner’s due process argument regarding the admission of Form I-213 was unavailing.
Reasoning: Mendez Avina’s argument that the admission of this form violated his due process rights is rejected, as prior rulings require showing of error for a due process violation.
Precedential Effect of Dispositionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court clarified that the disposition is not for publication and does not serve as precedent, except under specific circumstances set forth in the circuit rules.
Reasoning: The petition for review is denied, and the disposition is not for publication and does not serve as precedent except under specific conditions outlined in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Requirement of Prejudice for Due Process Reliefsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court emphasized that the petitioner must demonstrate that additional testimony would have affected the outcome to establish prejudice, following the standard articulated in Colmenar v. INS.
Reasoning: Mendez Avina failed to demonstrate that additional testimony could have influenced the outcome, as established by Colmenar v. INS, which requires a showing of prejudice for a due process claim.
Substantial Evidence Standard for Factual Findingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the substantial evidence standard in reviewing the IJ’s finding that the petitioner aided the illegal entry of another alien.
Reasoning: The IJ found substantial evidence that Mendez Avina aided in the illegal entry of another alien, and he was statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(11) and waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i).