Jose Enrique Serrano-Jimenez, a.k.a. Jose Jimenez-Jimenez 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ENRIQUE SERRANO-JIMENEZ,
a.k.a. Jose Jimenez-Jimenez,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72144
Agency No. A095-289-197
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Enrique Serrano-Jimenez, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for adjustment
FILED
JUL 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-72144 2
of status and ordering him removed. We have jurisdiction under 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Serrano-Jimenez’s due process rights were not violated by the admission of
the Form I-213 (Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien), which documented his
false claim to citizenship and which was supported by the preparing officer’s
testimony. See Espinoz v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (“The burden of establishing a
basis for exclusion of evidence from a government record falls on the opponent of
the evidence, who must come forward with enough negative factors to persuade the
court not to admit it.”); see also Tejada-Mata v. INS, 626 F.2d 721, 724 (9th Cir.
1980) (authenticity of a Form I-213 sufficiently established by the officer who
prepared it).
We agree with the BIA that, even assuming U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement violated 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(a), Serrano-Jimenz failed to demonstrate
prejudice. See U.S. v. Calderon-Medina, 591 F.2d 529 (9th Cir. 1979).
We do not have jurisdiction over Serrano-Jimenez’s contention that the IJ
based his credibility finding on improper factors, because the BIA declined to
reach this issue. See Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006)

-- 2 of 3 --

07-72144 3
(where the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law rather than
adopting the IJ’s decision the court’s “review is limited to the BIA’s decision,
except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.”) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --