FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE EMILIANO MORALES MEDINA, No. 08-72468
Petitioner, Agency No. A093-122-635
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011 **
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Emiliano Morales Medina, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo due process challenges. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400
*
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).
F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The agency did not violate Morales Medina’s due process rights by
admitting the Form I-213 (Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien) because the
form was probative, its admission was fundamentally fair, and Morales Medina did
not allege coercion or error. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310-11 (9th Cir.
1995); see also 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.”) (citations omitted).
We lack jurisdiction to review Morales Medina’s contention that the Form I-
213 should not have been admitted for lack of proper authentication because he
failed to raise that issue before the agency and thereby failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.
2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 08-72468