NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 25 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YELEUIS YAJAIRA ANAZCO ISTURIZ, No. 19-73242 Petitioner, Agency No. A213-084-677 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 10, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: BYBEE and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,*** District Judge. Yeleuis Yajaira Anazco Isturiz (Petitioner), a citizen of Venezuela, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying her * 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 Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation. immigration relief.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo allegations of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). In addition, we review adverse credibility findings for substantial evidence, and reversal is warranted only if “the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1184–85 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014)). We deny the petition for review. 1. The Immigration Judge (IJ) did not violate Petitioner’s due process rights by allowing the government to introduce her sworn statement from her border interview. Petitioner acknowledges that her sworn statement was submitted to the IJ at a December 13, 2017 master calendar hearing, which was attended by both Petitioner and her counsel, and occurred nearly three months before her March 8, 2018 merits hearing. Petitioner therefore had a reasonable opportunity to review her sworn statement, and the entry of this evidence was not fundamentally unfair for lack of notice. See Hernandez-Guadarrama v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 674, 681 (9th Cir. 2005); Cinapian v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1067, 1074 (9th Cir. 2009). Additionally, the Executive Office of Immigration Review certified and 1 Petitioner did not challenge the BIA’s denial of her application for protection under the Convention Against Torture. 2 authenticated the I-867A form which contained Petitioner’s sworn statement. The information contained in this document is therefore “presumed to be reliable in the absence of evidence to the contrary presented by the alien.” Espinoza v. I.N.S., 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995). Because Petitioner failed to point to probative evidence contradicting this authenticated I-867A, the IJ was “not required to permit cross-examination of the form’s preparer” at Petitioner’s merits hearing. See id. at 311. 2. Petitioner contends that her sworn statement should have been suppressed as unreliable. But border interview records with sufficient indicia of reliability can support adverse credibility findings. Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). The border interview during which Petitioner dictated the sworn statement, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals