Juan Armando Limon- Guerrero v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
RB/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN ARMANDO LIMON-
GUERRERO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-74730
Agency No. A097-213-928
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Juan Armando Limon-Guerrero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s order finding that he knowingly participated in alien
FILED
DEC 28 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

RB/Research 06-74730 2
smuggling in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(E)(i). We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and due process
claims, and for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
Limon-Guerrero’s due process rights were not violated by admission of the
Form I-213 (Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien) because the form was
probative and its admission was not fundamentally unfair, and where the preparing
officer testified at the hearing regarding the preparation of the form. See Espinoza
v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310-11 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that “[t]he sole test for
admission of evidence [in a deportation proceeding] is whether the evidence is
probative and its admission is fundamentally fair,” and rejecting argument that a
Form I-213 is inadmissible as hearsay); Trias-Hernandez v. INS, 528 F.2d 366, 369
(9th Cir. 1975) (“Hearsay is admissible in administrative proceedings, which need
not strictly follow conventional evidence rules.” (citation omitted)).
Contrary to Limon-Guerrero’s contention, the BIA correctly placed the
burden on the government to demonstrate removability by clear, convincing, and
unequivocal evidence, cf. Hernandez-Guadarrama v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 674, 678
(9th Cir. 2005), and substantial evidence supports its determination that Limon-
Guerrero is removable for engaging in alien smuggling.

-- 2 of 3 --

RB/Research 06-74730 3
Limon-Guerrero’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --