Rosa Torres De Figueroa 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).
LA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSA TORRES DE FIGUEROA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74788
Agency No. A076-347-678
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Rosa Torres de Figueroa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
FEB 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LA/Research 07-74788 2
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.
Torres de Figueroa’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. 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). Torres de Figueroa did not produce probative evidence
that cast doubt on the document’s reliability, admitted that the statements contained
there were true and given voluntarily, and declined the opportunity to cross-
examine the border officers. See id.
Even if the Form I-213 were obtained without a reading of rights, that by
itself would not warrant its suppression. See Trias-Hernandez v. INS, 528 F.2d
366, 369 (9th Cir. 1975).
Contrary to Torres de Figueroa’s contention, the BIA order is sufficient.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --