NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 10 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FERNANDO PEREZ LOPEZ, No. 19-72533 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-157-414 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submission deferred January 26, 2022 Submitted April 10, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: OWENS and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN,*** District Judge. Fernando Perez Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Dana L. Christensen, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of his applications for withholding of removal and cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 1. Perez Lopez argues that his Notice to Appear did not confer jurisdiction on the immigration court because it omitted the date, time, and place of his hearing. Our precedent forecloses that argument. United States v. Bastide- Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (holding that “the failure of an NTA to include time and date information does not deprive the immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction”). 2. Perez Lopez argues that the government failed to carry its burden to establish alienage because the Form I-213 that it introduced was not authenticated and therefore was inadmissible. We disagree. “The Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply in removal proceedings.” Hernandez v. Garland, 52 F.4th 757, 766 (9th Cir. 2022). But even if they did, the proceedings in this case were consistent with the rules. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 901, a public record is authenticated if a party presents evidence sufficient to support a finding that the “purported public record or statement is from the office where items of this kind are kept.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a), (b)(7)(B); see also United States v. Gadson, 763 F.3d 1189, 1203 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[T]he 2 party offering the evidence must make a prima facie showing of authenticity ‘so that a reasonable [factfinder] could find in favor of authenticity or identification.’” (quoting United States v. Chu Kong Yin, 935 F.2d 990, 996 (9th Cir. 1991))). Meeting this requirement “does not require personal knowledge of a document’s creation, but rather only personal knowledge that a document was part of an official file,” and we have previously found a DHS agent’s testimony that documents were “what [they were] claimed to be, namely, accurate copies of documents [the DHS agent] personally knew were from [the petitioner]’s A-file” to be sufficient for authentication. United States v. Estrada-Eliverio, 583 F.3d 669, 673 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals