FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 30 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VERONICA ANTOINETTE No. 15-72224 MOREHEAD, AKA Monique Petrice Hightower, Agency No. A057-555-427 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 9, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: TASHIMA and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and KATZMANN,*** Judge. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C). *** The Honorable Gary S. Katzmann, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. Veronica Antoinette Morehead, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision that found her removable as charged and ordered her removed to Jamaica. Morehead seeks relief on the grounds that the IJ violated her due process rights by admitting documents that had not been properly authenticated and without requiring additional testimony from certain witnesses. She also challenges her removability on sufficiency of the evidence grounds. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Because the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision with a citation to Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), while also adding its own reasoning, we review both the IJ and BIA decisions. See Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo the BIA’s determination of constitutional and legal questions, including claims of due process violations, see id., and we review any administrative findings of fact for substantial evidence, meaning we uphold the agency’s findings unless the evidence compels a contrary result, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1336 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny the petition for review. 2 1. The IJ’s admission of and reliance on the passport application, FBI rap sheet, and docket sheet relating to Monique Petrice Hightower did not violate Morehead’s due process rights. The “sole test” governing the admission of evidence in deportation proceedings is “whether the evidence is probative and its admission is fundamentally fair.” Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995), as amended on denial of reh’g (Apr. 7, 1995). As to authentication specifically, the Ninth Circuit has held that “immigration forms [must] be authenticated through some recognized procedure, such as those required by [Department of Homeland Security] regulations or by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id. at 309–10. We have clarified that the procedures set forth in the Federal Rules of Evidence may also be used to authenticate documents in immigration proceedings. See Vatyan v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, the IJ considered various items of evidence before concluding that the contested documents were ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals