Imelda Ulloa 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
IMELDA ULLOA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72942
Agency No. A095-667-055
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Imelda Ulloa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding her removable for participating in alien smuggling.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due
FILED
NOV 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72942 2
process violations in removal proceedings, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d
1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not violate due process by admitting into evidence Ulloa’s Record
of Sworn Statement and Form I-213 Record of Inadmissible Alien. These
documents were probative, their admission was not fundamentally unfair, and the
preparing officer testified at the hearing regarding the procedures for creating the
documents. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 309-10 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The sole
test for admission of evidence [in removal proceedings] is whether the evidence is
probative and its admission is fundamentally fair.”).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Ulloa’s remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --