A. Presumption of Reliability
1 Form I-213 can be authenticated by any recognized procedure. See Iran v. INS, 656 F.2d 469, 472 (9th Cir. 1981).
Absent any evidence that a Form I-213 contains information that is incorrect or was obtained by coercion or duress, it is inherently trustworthy and admissible as evidence to prove alienage or deportability. Matter of Barcenas, 19 I&N Dec. 609, 611 (BIA 1988).
B. Incorrect Information or Coercion/Duress - the Commonly Raised Problems
1. Source problems - If the source of the information on an I-213 is neither the government nor the subject of the report, it cannot be presumed true. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995).
- Sources with ulterior motives; e.g., government informant. Murphy v. INS, 54 F.3d 605, 610 (9th Cir. 1995)
- Sources that do not merit evidentiary weight; e.g. a statement that had been withdrawn from the record. Hernandez-Guadarrama v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 674, 680 (9th Cir. 2005).
2. Special source problems with juveniles - identify if the source is the juvenile respondent or an accompanying adult.
- There may be a problem if the source is not identifiable. See Matter of Rosa Mejia-Andino, 23 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 2002) (Espenoza, concurring).
- If it is a child, determine whether this creates a reliability problem (may depend on age of child). See Matter of Ponce-Hernandez, 22 I&N Dec. 784 (BIA 1999).
- If it is an accompanying adult, then generally no juvenile-related source problem. See Matter of Gomez-Gomez, 23 I&N Dec. 522 (BIA 2002).
3. Problems with the form or accusations by the respondent of false information - determine if the problem cited to is material and if any probative evidence has been submitted contradicting something on the form. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Murphy v. INS, 54 F.3d 605, 610-11 (9th Cir. 1995).
4. Cross examination problems - There is no an automatic right to cross-examine the preparer of an I-213. Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 311 (9th Cir. 1995). But if the respondent raises significant problems with the form, cross-examination (or other verification of some sort) may be necessary. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Murphy v. INS, 54 F.3d 605, 610-11 (9th Cir. 1995).
5. Coercion/duress - no cases were found where the respondent alleged coercion or duress but this remains a possibility.
C. Decide What Weight, if any, to Assign
1. If the respondent does not appear or does not testify - the Form I-213 is given full evidentiary weight because the respondent has waived any opposition to it. See Matter of Ponce-Hernandez, 22 I&N Dec. 784, 785-86 (BIA 1999); see also Matter of Barcenas, 19 I&N Dec. 609 (BIA 1988).
2. If the respondent does appear and raises issues -
• If no evidence that the I-213 contains information that is incorrect or was obtained by coercion or duress » give full weight.
• If some evidence » determine if the evidence is sufficient to justify giving the I-213 limited or no weight.
Back to TOC