PONCE-HERNANDEZ

Interim Decision #3397

In re Jose Cornelio PONCE-HERNANDEZ, Respondent

File A29 906 261 - Houston

Decided May 28, 1999

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board of Immigration Appeals

The Immigration and Naturalization Service met its burden of establishing a minor

respondent’s deportability for entry without inspection by clear, unequivocal, and convincing

evidence, where (1) a Record of Deportable Alien (Form I-213) was submitted, documenting

the respondent’s identity and alienage; (2) the respondent, who failed without good cause to

appear at his deportation hearing, made no challenge to the admissibility of the Form I-213;

and (3) there were no grounds for a finding that the admission of the Form I-213 would be

fundamentally unfair.

Pro se

Lisa Luis, Assistant District Counsel, for the Immigration and Naturalization Service

Before: Board En Banc: DUNNE, Vice Chairman; VACCA, HEILMAN, HOLMES,

HURWITZ, FILPPU, COLE, MATHON, JONES, GRANT, SCIALABBA, and

MOSCATO, Board Members. Dissenting Opinion: ROSENBERG, Board

Member, joined by SCHMIDT, Chairman; VILLAGELIU and GUENDELS-

BERGER, Board Members.

HURWITZ, Board Member:

In a decision dated April 1, 1996, the Immigration Judge issued an

order terminating the deportation proceedings in this case. The Immigration

Judge found that the respondent’s deportability had not been established by

clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence. See Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S.

276 (1966). The Immigration and Naturalization Service timely appealed

the decision. The appeal will be sustained and the record will be remanded

to the Immigration Judge.

The respondent was not present at the hearing below, although he had

been properly notified of the date and time of the hearing. The respondent

apparently entered the country without inspection. He was apprehended

784

Interim Decision #3397

by the Immigration and Naturalization Service near Brownsville, Texas.

He was personally served with an Order to Show Cause and Notice of

Hearing (Form I-221) on November 14, 1995. He was 15 years old at the

time.

The Immigration Judge found, as an initial matter, that the respondent

had been properly notified of the time and the place of the deportation hear-

ing. We agree with his finding that the Order to Show Cause in this case was

properly served on the respondent, and that the respondent’s absence pro-

vided a basis for holding his deportation hearing in absentia. See section

242B of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252b (1994).

The remaining question is whether the Service met its burden of prov-

ing the respondent’s deportability for entry without inspection by clear,

unequivocal, and convincing evidence, as required. We find that the Service

met this burden and therefore that the Immigration Judge should have sus-

tained the deportation charge.

To establish the respondent’s deportability, the Service produced a

copy of a Record of Deportable Alien (Form I-213) which was dated

November 14, 1995. The Form I-213 stated that the respondent was a

native and citizen of El Salvador who last entered the United States with-

out inspection on November 11, 1995. It also contained personal infor-

mation regarding the respondent’s sex, hair, eyes, complexion, height,

weight, marital status, and occupation, which is a laborer. It also con-

tained specific information regarding the names and nationality of the

respondent’s parents and the town in El Salvador where he resided before

illegally entering the United States. The Form I-213 was signed by the

Service agent who completed the document. The narrative portion of the

Form I-213 contains a notation regarding funds but does not give any fur-

ther information. The above-referenced information on the Form I-213 is

detailed, and there is nothing to indicate that it came from anyone other

than the respondent.

The test for the admissibility of evidence in deportation proceedings is

whether the evidence is probative and whether its use is fundamentally fair

so as not to deprive the alien of due process. See Bustos-Torres v. INS, 898

F.2d 1053, 1055 (5th Cir. 1990). It has been held that, absent any evidence

that a Form I-213 contains information that is incorrect or was obtained by

coercion or duress, that document is inherently trustworthy and admissible

as evidence to prove alienage or deportability. See Matter of Barcenas, 19

I&N Dec. 609 (BIA 1988).

Under the above test, we find that the Form I-213 is admissible as a

reliable document in this case. See Bustos-Torres v. INS, supra, at 1058

(holding that a Form I-213 can suffice to establish deportability).

Because the respondent failed to appear for his deportation hearing, he

waived his opportunity to claim that the Form I-213 contains information

785

Interim Decision #3397

which was incorrect or obtained by coercion or duress. Further, there is noth-

ing facially deficient about this Form I-213 that would render it inadmissible.1

The Immigration Judge took issue with the fact that the Form I-213 did

not specify that the respondent was advised that his statements could be

used against him in later proceedings. However, the record establishes that

the respondent was properly served with his Order to Show Cause and read

a specific set of instructions for minors being placed in proceedings. While

the Order to Show Cause was most likely created after the Form I-213, the

compliance with proper procedure serves as evidence that the Service acted

in compliance with the rules. In light of these factors and the fact that the

respondent presented no evidence that he was not fully advised of his rights,

or that he was in any way prejudiced, we find no basis for discounting the

contents of the Form I-213.2

The Immigration Judge was concerned with the fact that the respondent

was a minor at the time the Form I-213 was completed. However, as the

Service correctly pointed out, there is no provision in the Act or in the reg-

ulations that prohibits the use of a Form I-213 created after an encounter

with an unaccompanied minor. Cf. Matter of Amaya, 21 I&N Dec. 583 (BIA

1996) (holding that an Immigration Judge may accept a minor’s admissions

to factual allegations, which may suffice to prove deportability). But cf. 8

C.F.R. § 242.16(b) (1996) (stating that the Immigration Court cannot accept

an admission of deportability from an unaccompanied minor);3 8 C.F.R. §

1

In questioning the reliability of the information on the Form I-213, the dissent is essen-

tially creating arguments never raised below, because the respondent failed to appear. The

alleged shortcomings of the evidence mentioned by the dissent are largely speculative.

2

The dissent would find that an apparent regulatory violation occurred because the Form

I-213 seems to indicate that the same Service officer who located or apprehended the alien

also questioned him. While in some instances this could be shown to be a violation of 8

C.F.R. § 287.3 (1995), the regulations explicitly permit an arresting officer to interview an

alien when “no other qualified officer is readily available and the taking of an alien before

another officer would entail unnecessary delay.” Since we do not know whether another offi-

cer was available, we cannot find that there has been a violation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(a), and

we do not reach any issues associated with such a possible regulatory violation.

3

The determinative issue in this case is not whether the Immigration Judge could rely on

the minor respondent’s apparent admission that he “entered without inspection,” an admis-

sion arguably analogous to an “admission of deportability” referenced in 8 C.F.R. §

242.16(b). Rather, the issue is whether the uncontested facts reflected on the Form I-213 ade-

quately establish the respondent’s identity and alienage. Had the respondent appeared at the

deportation proceedings as he was required to do, the Immigration Judge could have further

inquired into his ability to understand any admitted facts. See Matter of Amaya, supra, at 586.

Minors are not presumed to be incapable of understanding and admitting facts. Id. Therefore,

a respondent who fails to appear at a properly scheduled proceeding, and thus precludes any

further inquiry into his capacity to understand previously admitted facts, should not be put in

a better position than a respondent who appears, as required by law. Given the basic nature

of the information in the Form I-213 and the age of the respondent, there is no adequate basis

to bar reliance on the uncontested factual information reflected therein.

786

Interim Decision #3397

240.48(b) (1999).4 Furthermore, there is neither an assertion nor a reason to

believe that the respondent’s age impeded an accurate exchange of basic

biographical information between the respondent and the border patrol

agent.

Finally, we address the Immigration Judge’s conclusion that the Form

I-213 should be discounted because it lacks information regarding how it

was completed. It would be preferable to have additional narrative infor-

mation to complement the detailed notations in the nonnarrative component

of the Form I-213. However, without any indication that the information is

not reliable, the detailed information regarding the respondent’s identity

and alienage is adequate to establish his alienage, and thus to shift the bur-

den to the respondent to show the time, place, and manner of his entry under

section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361 (1994). See Matter of Castro, 16

I&N Dec. 81 (BIA 1976). The respondent failed to provide this information

and therefore must be found deportable as charged.

For the foregoing reasons, the following order will be entered.

ORDER: The appeal of the Immigration and Naturalization Service

is sustained.

FURTHER ORDER: The Immigration Judge’s order of April 1,

1996, is vacated, and the record is remanded to the Immigration Court for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

DISSENTING OPINION: Lory Diana Rosenberg, Board Member, in which

Paul W. Schmidt, Chairman; Gustavo D. Villageliu and John

Guendelsberger, Board Members joined

I respectfully dissent.

The principal issue before us is whether the Immigration and

Naturalization Service has met its burden of proving that the respondent is

deportable by evidence that is clear, unequivocal, and convincing. See

Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276 (1966); see also section 242B(c)(1) of the

Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(1) (1994); 8 C.F.R.

§ 240.46(a) (1999) (stating that “a determination of deportability shall not

be valid unless it is found . . . that the facts alleged as grounds for deporta-

tion are true”).

The majority has concluded that Form I-213 (Record of Deportable

Alien), which was submitted by the Service, adequately meets the Service’s

burden and establishes deportability according to the governing standard. I

disagree. As the respondent was under the age of 16 at the time of his arrest

and his later deportation hearing before the Immigration Judge, we are

4

The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 242.16(b) was recodified at 8 C.F.R. § 240.48(b) subse-

quent to the Immigration Judge’s decision in this case.

787

Interim Decision #3397

bound by the regulations and our precedent pertaining to unaccompanied

minors in deportation proceedings. See generally Matter of Amaya, 21 I&N

Dec. 593 (BIA 1996); 8 C.F.R. § 240.48(b) (1999).

We previously have taken into consideration the unique procedural

problems posed when respondents are minors. Matter of Amaya, supra, at

586 (holding that an Immigration Judge “must exercise particular care in

determining [a minor’s] deportability” and that the Immigration Judge must

make a “comprehensive and independent inquiry” into a minor’s deporta-

bility). I see no reason why these considerations are not applicable in this

case. In light of the limited evidence presented by the Service, and the ques-

tionable accuracy and reliability of that evidence, I concur with the

Immigration Judge that deportability has not been established by clear,

unequivocal, and convincing evidence. See Matter of Amaya, supra, at 588

n.4 (holding that, in light of ambiguities in the respondent’s testimony,

information contained in a Form I-213 was not in itself sufficient to estab-

lish the respondent’s deportability).

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND EVIDENCE OF RECORD

The respondent did not appear at his scheduled deportation hearing

before the Immigration Judge. Therefore he was not present to be examined

by the Service or questioned by the Immigration Judge.

Instead, the evidence presented by the Service to meet its burden of

proof in this case consists principally of the Form I-213, a one-page form.

The top portion of this form contains handwritten notations apparently

filled in by an immigration officer on January 14, 1995. The bottom portion

of the document is essentially blank.

The document lacks any narrative statement on the blank bottom por-

tion of the page provided for such purpose. The annotations on this form

give us little idea of how the information on the form was obtained, includ-

ing whether the information was provided in whole or in part by the respon-

dent or some other individual, and if so, which portions were provided by

the respondent. No part of the form is initialed or otherwise affirmed by the

minor respondent. In addition, if the information was provided in whole or

in part by the minor respondent, there is no evidence of his capacity for pro-

viding such information, or of the circumstances under which such infor-

mation was provided.

The Form I-213 indicates that the respondent was arrested by an immi-

gration officer at 0900 on November 14, 1995. It also indicates that the

same officer received the subject and performed an interview with the

respondent, which was conducted at 0900 on November 14, 1995.

An Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing (Form I-221), dated

November 14, 1995, indicates that it was served on the respondent by a dif-

788

Interim Decision #3397

ferent officer at 2:00 P.M. The record contains a form entitled “Notification

Requirement for Change of Address,” indicating that the respondent was

required to provide notice of any address change, which was served on the

respondent by a different officer at 2:00 P.M. The record also contains a

Form I-770 (Instruction to Officers), indicating that the respondent was

advised of his rights regarding his option to make a telephone call as to

whether he should depart voluntarily without need for a deportation hear-

ing. The record also contains a form indicating the respondent was advised

of the possible availability of low cost or free legal services. See 8 C.F.R. §

287.3 (1995). The Service must advise the respondent of the reasons for his

arrest, of his right to counsel at no expense to the Government, and of the

fact that any statement may be used against him in a subsequent proceed-

ing, id., but there is no requirement that the Service provide any evidence

of such a warning having been given, and none was submitted here.

At the deportation hearing, conducted in absentia, the Service did not

provide additional evidence or seek a continuance, but moved to go for-

ward. The Service rested on the documents submitted and did not present

any other documents, such as a question and answer statement or other

statement signed by the respondent. The Service did not present any wit-

nesses, such as the officer who wrote the information on the Form I-213, or

any other employee, or other individual who was present when the respon-

dent was arrested and the form was completed. The Service did not submit

an affidavit from any such individual and did not offer any other evidence

relating to who provided the information on the Form I-213, under what cir-

cumstances it was provided, or the respondent’s capacity to provide such

information.

II. ADMISSIBILITY AND PROBATIVE VALUE OF A

FORM I-213 REGARDING A MINOR

This case poses questions concerning the admissibility and probative

value of a Form I-213, when the form purports to contain factual admissions

made by a minor during the course of apprehension and a subsequent inter-

view by the Service.

Immigration and Naturalization Service Form I-213 is admissible in

deportation proceedings. Matter of Barcenas, 19 I&N Dec. 609, 611 (BIA

1988) (holding that “the tests for the admissibility of documentary evidence

in deportation proceedings are that evidence must be probative and that its

use must be fundamentally fair”); see also Bustos-Torres v. INS, 898 F.2d

1053, 1056 (5th Cir. 1990); Trias-Hernandez v. INS, 528 F.2d 366 (9th Cir.

1975); Matter of Toro, 17 I&N Dec. 340 (BIA 1980). We have held con-

sistently that “[a]bsent any indication that a Form I-213 contains informa-

tion that is incorrect or was obtained by coercion or duress, that document

789

Interim Decision #3397

is inherently trustworthy and admissible as evidence to prove alienage and

deportability. Matter of Mejia, 16 I&N Dec. 6 (BIA 1976); Matter of

Davila, 15 I&N Dec. 781 (BIA 1976), remanded, Davila-Villacaba v. INS,

594 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1979); see also Tejeda-Mata v. INS, 626 F.2d 721

(9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 994 (1982).” Matter of Barcenas,

supra, at 611.

In the case of a minor, these settled principles must be applied in the

context of our recent decision in Matter of Amaya. In Matter of Amaya,

supra, at 586, we recognized that “[i]n the case of an unaccompanied and

unrepresented minor under the age of 16 years, however, 8 C.F.R. §

242.16(b) requires that an Immigration Judge may not accept such a

minor’s admission to a charge of deportability because the minor is pre-

sumed to be incapable of determining whether a charge applies to him.”

Mindful of this limitation, we held that “8 C.F.R. § 242.16(b) does not pre-

clude an Immigration Judge from accepting such a minor’s admissions to

factual allegations. Minors under the age of 16, even when unaccompanied

and unrepresented, are not presumed incapable of understanding the content

of those allegations and of determining whether they are true.” Id. We rec-

ognized, however, that

[t]he minor’s age and pro se and unaccompanied status must be taken into considera-

tion. The Immigration Judge must consider the reliability of the testimony given by

such a minor in response to the factual allegations made against him in determining,

after a comprehensive and independent inquiry, whether there is clear, unequivocal,

and convincing evidence of the minor’s deportability as charged in the Order to Show

Cause. If the Immigration Judge is assured that the respondent is both capable of

understanding, and in fact understands, any facts that are admitted, and that those facts

establish deportability, they may form the sole basis of a finding that the minor is

deportable.

Id. at 587. As the Supreme Court noted in Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S.

104, 116 (1982), “Even the normal 16 year old customarily lacks the matu-

rity of an adult.” See also Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622, 635 (1979) (stat-

ing that “minors often lack the experience, perspective, and judgment to

recognize and avoid choices that could be detrimental to them”); Perez-

Funez v. District Director INS, 619 F. Supp. 656, 661-62 (C.D. Cal. 1985).

Principles such as these, relating to the potential vulnerability and lim-

ited capacity of minor respondents, must be considered in the context of

established law holding that the Form I-213 is an official document which

is presumed to be reliable. The question of the exact degree of youth or

other indicia of lessened capacity or maturity, necessary to overcome the

majority’s presumption that statements attributed to a minor that are record-

ed on such a form are accurate, is not amenable to a blanket rule. Instead,

this is the type of question that should be determined by an Immigration

Judge on a individual basis. Matter of Amaya, supra, at 586 (emphasizing

790

Interim Decision #3397

the need for a “comprehensive and independent inquiry”).

This is not to say that, in the case of a minor’s failure to appear for a

hearing, the Immigration Judge could not conclude from the evidence

before him that the minor was deportable as charged. Similarly, this is not

to say that the Service can never meet its burden of proof in such a case.

Under circumstances in which a minor has signed or affirmed particular

facts or a narrative statement contained in a Form I-213, or has executed a

separate question and answer statement, an Immigration Judge might con-

clude that the minor respondent is “capable of understanding, and in fact

understands, any facts that are admitted, and that those facts establish

deportability.” Matter of Amaya, supra, at 587. Likewise, in a situation in

which the Service has provided the testimony or affidavit of the arresting

officer, the officer who prepared the Form I-213, or any other person able

to attest to the atmosphere in which factual admissions may have been pro-

vided by the respondent, an Immigration Judge may reach a similar con-

clusion, consistent with the regulation and our decision in Matter of Amaya.

However, in the case before us, the Service did not introduce any evi-

dence other than the Form I-213 and other documents, which appear to have

been presented to the respondent after the Form I-213 was completed. In the

instant case, the Immigration Judge decided that there simply was not

enough information relating to the respondent, or the questioning of the

respondent, to allow him to rule that the Form I-213 constituted admissible

and probative evidence. He rightly concluded that there was not an adequate

basis on which to find that the Form I-213 contained any factual admissions

made by the minor respondent himself, or that the minor respondent was

competent to make such factual admissions and that such purported admis-

sions therefore supported the ultimate finding of deportability as charged.

For example, one cannot tell with certainty whether the questioning of

the respondent was conducted in one language or two languages, whether

the respondent was questioned fairly and directly, or whether some of the

purported responses recorded on the Form I-213 were provided by individ-

uals other than the respondent. One cannot even tell whether the respon-

dent, assuming the respondent gave the answers indicated, understood the

importance of accurate answers. These questions, and other possible ques-

tions, relate directly to the reliability of the respondent’s answers, and it is

this reliability that is central to the determination of the probative value of

the evidence. Woodby v. INS, supra; 8 C.F.R. § 240.46(a).

Such deficiencies in the evidence of deportability before us are not

inevitable, and my agreement with the Immigration Judge’s conclusion that

the Form I-213 is inadequate in this case does not impose an unreasonable

burden on the Service. There is nothing inherent in the Form I-213 that nec-

essarily precludes reliance on a properly and adequately completed Form I-

213 to constitute factual admissions by a minor that might support a find-

ing of deportability. The Immigration Judge was correct in finding that, at

791

Interim Decision #3397

the least, some additional proof beyond the limited and equivocal evidence

provided would be necessary to meet the high standard embodied in the

concept of clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence.

A. Apparent Violation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(a)

In the case before us, the Service officer who arrested the respondent

was the same officer who signed the Form I-213, indicating that it was he

who interviewed the respondent and filled out the form. Cf. 8 C.F.R. §

287.3(a). The regulation provides that the examination of an arrested alien

shall be before an officer other than the one who apprehended and arrest-

ed the alien. Id. The regulation provides an exception to this rule when no

other qualified officer is available and taking the alien before another offi-

cer would entail unnecessary delay. Id. As the respondent was arrested at

0900, and the Order to Show Cause was issued by another officer at 2

P.M. or 1400, it is evident that the arrest took place during regular busi-

ness hours and that, at a minimum, another officer was available within,

at most, 5 hours of the respondent’s apprehension and arrest. The ques-

tioning of a minor respondent by the same Service officer who appre-

hended and arrested him further calls into question the reliability of the

information on the Form I-213.

B. Unreliability of Information on the Form I-213

Although the Form I-213 has been treated as presumptively admissible

in cases involving adult respondents, the admissibility of the Form I-213

has been questioned in cases in which the reliability of the form is some-

how undermined. See Murphy v. INS, 54 F.3d 605, 610-11 (9th Cir. 1995)

(vacating the Board’s determination based in part upon an inaccurate Form

I-213 for which information was provided by a biased Service informant);

Cunanan v. INS, 856 F.2d 1373, 1374-75 (9th Cir. 1988) (vacating the

Board’s determination premised upon an uncorroborated affidavit of an

absent witness and a Form I-213 reporting the substance of an interview of

the witness by a Service officer); see also Fed. R. Evid. 803(8) (public

records admissible “unless the sources of information or other circum-

stances indicate lack of trustworthiness”). The minor respondent’s absence

does not preclude the Immigration Judge from finding deportability based

on admissions that constitute evidence that is clear, unequivocal, and con-

vincing, but such admissions must be determined to be admissible, i.e., of

probative value. Matter of Barcenas, supra, at 611. In other words, such a

finding must be made in conjunction with the Immigration Judge being sat-

isfied that the factual admissions from a minor respondent on which such a

conclusion of law is based are reliable.

Several admissibility issues are raised by the particular Form I-213 that

792

Interim Decision #3397

was introduced by the Service in this case. First, the information on the

Form I-213 does not establish alienage by evidence that is clear, unequivo-

cal, and convincing. Woodby v. INS, supra. The Form I-213 does contain the

minor respondent’s name, his place of birth, his most recent address, and

the names of his parents. However, in the case of a minor, the purported

statement of one’s name, one’s parents’ names, and a foreign address is not,

without more, a factual admission of alienage. Cf. Matter of Amaya, supra,

at 586 (“In the case of other persons in deportation proceedings, an

Immigration Judge . . . may proceed to a finding of deportability without

engaging in a comprehensive, independent inquiry. Such a respondent is

presumed to be capable of understanding whether the factual allegations

made against him are accurate, and whether, to a reasonable extent, he is a

person to whom the charges of deportability apply.”). In the instant case, the

Form I-213 does not contain adequate assurances that the respondent pro-

vided accurate information regarding his citizenship and nationality, and no

other factual information sufficient to determine the respondent’s national-

ity or citizenship has been presented.

Second, the Form I-213 does not contain any language that can be con-

sidered a factual admission of the underlying facts of an entry without

inspection. The Service officer did notate the acronym “EWI” on the form.

However, the notation of the letters “EWI” on the Form I-213 amounts to

a legal conclusion, not a factual admission. By contrast, a narrative factual

statement executed by a respondent concerning the manner of his entry, or

an evasion of inspection at the border, might provide facts adequate to

establish an unlawful entry. Our holding in Matter of Amaya, supra, clear-

ly distinguished between factual admissions and legal conclusions made by

minor respondents, and rejected such legal conclusions made by minors. Id.

at 586; see also 8 C.F.R. § 240.48(b). In this case there is simply no way to

ascertain what factual admissions led the Service officer to notate the legal

conclusion of entry without inspection. Id.

As I have indicated throughout this dissent, the Service might have

overcome the fact of the respondent’s absence, which resulted in the hear-

ing being conducted without the benefit of the respondent’s testimony, in

a variety of ways. The Form I-213 itself could have reflected the source

of the information. A written declaration from the apprehending (or ques-

tioning) officer, an interpreter who was present when the interview was

conducted, or the observations of any other person present at the time of

the interview could have been offered. Or, the Service could have pre-

sented the live testimony of the officer who purportedly interviewed the

respondent. In addition, the Service could have asked the Immigration

Judge for a continuance to obtain such additional evidence once it learned

the respondent was not present. As the Service followed none of these

possible courses of action that would have allowed it to meet its burden in

the absence of the respondent, I find no basis to conclude that the burden

793

Interim Decision #3397

of proof has been met and I would not disturb the Immigration Judge’s

ruling here.

III. PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE CONTENTS OF FORM I-213

This is not a case in which “the respondent’s admission that he was

born in [a foreign country] is clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence

that shifts to him the burden of showing the time, place, and manner of his

entry under section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361 (1994). Matter of

Benitez, 19 I&N Dec. 173 (BIA 1984).” Matter of Amaya, supra, at 588.

To the extent any “admission” exists, it is embodied on the Form I-213,

which must be found inadmissible in this case because it lacks probative

value.

Such a conclusion is not in conflict with the Board’s decisions in

Matter of Barcenas, supra, and Matter of Castro, 16 I&N Dec. 81 (BIA

1976). In Matter of Barcenas, we adopted as generally acceptable the pre-

sumption of accuracy of the information on a Form I-213, when that docu-

ment has been entered into evidence without objection from the respondent.

There, not only was the respondent an adult, but the submission of the Form

I-213 was buttressed by the in-person testimony of a Service officer. See

Matter of Barcenas, supra. Here, the presumption of accuracy of the Form

I-213 has been called into question by the Immigration Judge, who found

he could not determine whether the respondent provided any of the infor-

mation on the Form I-213, that he could not determine the capacity of the

respondent to make any admissions that may have been memorialized on

the Form I-213, and that he could not assess the circumstances under which

the respondent made such admissions, if indeed he was the source of the

information on the Form I-213.

In Matter of Castro, supra, we held that an alien’s admission to alien-

age before an Immigration Judge, made in a hearing in which he was rep-

resented by counsel, did trigger section 291 of the Act, and shift the burden

on the alien to establish show time, manner, and place of entry. But in con-

trast to the circumstances existing in Castro, here there was no counsel

present when the purported admission was made, the purported admission

was not made before an Immigration Judge, and the capacity of the respon-

dent and the circumstances under which he made such an admission, if

indeed, he did make it, are unknown. Each of these prior precedents

involved an adult respondent, each involved a situation in which the respon-

dent was represented by counsel, and one, Matter of Barcenas, supra,

involved presentation of live witness testimony to corroborate the informa-

tion contained on the Form I-213. Clearly, these cases involving adult

respondents are distinguishable from a case involving a minor respondent,

in which the Service is relying solely on a Form I-213 of uncertain origin.

794

Interim Decision #3397

While the respondent’s failure to appear ordinarily has the statutory and

regulatory consequence of making him immediately subject to an order of

deportation,1 it does not have the evidentiary consequence of excusing any

evidentiary gaps in the case against him. Specifically, in Matter of Amaya,

supra, at 586, we stated that even where an unaccompanied and unrepre-

sented minor under the age of 16 years admits to the factual allegations

made against him, an Immigration Judge must take into consideration the

minor’s age and pro se and unaccompanied status in determining, after a

comprehensive and independent inquiry, whether the minor’s testimony is

reliable and whether he understands any facts that are admitted, such that

his deportability is established by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evi-

dence. Ultimately, in that case, we determined that even when the respon-

dent was present and available to be questioned before the Immigration

Judge, neither his testimony nor the information on the Form I-213 was suf-

ficiently clear to satisfy the Service’s burden of proof. Id. at 588. The same

is true in the case before us.

On its face, 8 C.F.R. § 242.16(b) does not bar statements made during

a custodial interrogation, such as an interview to prepare a Form I-213.

However, the regulation recognizes that an unaccompanied minor under 16

may lack sufficient maturity to appreciate the significance of providing fac-

tual responses, and may lack the capacity to evaluate the foreseeable con-

sequences of such responses. See Davila-Bardales v. INS, 27 F.3d 1, 3 (1st

Cir. 1994).2 If a concession of the legal conclusion of deportability made

by an unrepresented minor before an Immigration Judge (with all the atten-

dant procedural protections) lacks sufficient trustworthiness to be admissi-

ble, then conclusory statements regarding deportability made to an arrest-

ing officer during a custodial interrogation are at least of comparable

untrustworthiness. Moreover, to allow the Service to meet its burden of

proof by introducing a Form I-213 as a purported concession of deportabil-

ity made by an unaccompanied minor under 16 during a custodial interro-

gation would circumvent the underlying intent of the above-cited regula-

tion. Thus, the appearance of the acronym “EWI” on the Form I-213 in the

case before us cannot be attributed to the respondent, nor relied upon as a

basis to establish deportability.

Similarly, because there has been no reliable showing that the respon-

1

See generally section 242B(c)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §

1252b(c)(1) (Supp. II 1990); Matter of Gonzalez-Lopez, 20 I&N Dec. 644 (BIA 1993).

2

As noted in Davila-Bardales v. INS, supra, at 4, “This does not mean that in a proper

case a minor’s own admissions are not binding upon him. If a minor is of sufficient age and

discretion to make him a competent witness, then he is competent to tell the truth against him-

self in court, and also competent to tell the truth by making admissions against himself out-

side of court.”

795

Interim Decision #3397

dent admitted to facts establishing alienage, there has been no shifting of

the burden of proof to the alien (under section 291 of the Act) to show time,

manner, and place of entry. Cf. Matter of Castro, supra. Had alienagae been

established through the respondent’s testimony before the Immigration

Judge, or by factual admissions, which were memorialized on the Form I-

213 under circumstances that satisfied the Immigration Judge that the

respondent was competent to make such admissions, see 8 C.F.R. §

242.16(b) (1996), then the respondent would be required to show the time,

manner, and place of entry. See section 291 of the Act. However, the pred-

icate conditions for such a shifting of the burden have not been met.

In Matter of Amaya, supra, at 588, we held:

We find that the respondent’s ‘admissions’ regarding the circumstances of his entry

into the United States do not establish by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence

that the respondent entered the United States without inspection, as the Order to Show

Cause charges. At the least, the respondent’s testimony equivocates, and is unclear, on

the issue of whether he was not inspected by an immigration officer, one of the factu-

al allegations made in the Order to Show Cause.

It is important to note that despite finding that an Immigration Judge could

rely on a minor respondent’s admissions, we rejected such admissions as

being unreliable in Matter of Amaya, supra. We concluded, therefore, that

“[b]ecause the Immigration Judge’s finding of deportability is not based on

clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the facts alleged as

grounds for the respondent’s deportation are true, that finding is not valid.

8 C.F.R. § 242.14(a). Id. at 588 (footnote omitted).

Here, the Form I-213 contains no narrative explanation whatsoever

regarding the nature of the respondent’s entry. As we stated in Matter of

Amaya, supra, “[I]n light of the unresolved ambiguity reflected in the minor

respondent’s testimony, we find that the factual information contained in the

Form I-213 is not in itself sufficient to establish the respondent’s deporta-

bility by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence.” Id. at 588 n.4. The

record before us contains no testimony, no in-person examination by the

Immigration Judge, and no specific information establishing that the infor-

mation on the Form I-213 either constitutes the respondent’s admissions, or

was derived from the respondent’s admissions. In short, no documentary

evidence was presented by the Service that would tend to allow the type of

scrutiny by the Immigration Judge contemplated in Matter of Amaya, supra.

The evidence of record provides no assurances, comparable to those that an

Immigration Judge would be able to obtain from questioning a minor

respondent directly, that the information pertaining to the respondent’s

name, place of birth, and last residence is reliable. Finally, in addition to the

rudimentary nature of the information compiled and notated, as noted

above, the Form I-213 bears signs that the questioning of the minor respon-

dent may have been improper and conducted in violation of the regulations.

796

Interim Decision #3397

See 8 C.F.R. § 287.3. For example, as discussed above, it appears that the

same Service officer who apprehended the respondent also questioned the

respondent and filled out the Form I-213, in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.3.

Little is gained by any suggestion that the fact that the respondent was

not present at his hearing compromises his right to challenge the Form I-

213. Cf. Matter of Ponce-Hernandez, 22 I&N Dec. 3397, at 3 (BIA 1999).

Although the respondent was not present to challenge the Form I-213 on the

basis of any defects it may contain, the Service bears an affirmative burden

of meeting its burden of proof. 8 C.F.R. § 240.46(a). The presumption of

reliability that might be accorded a Form I-213 in other cases does not apply

to this Form I-213 when the interview it purports to record was based on

statements made by a minor under circumstances such as those that exist

here. In the case of a minor respondent, additional factors going beyond the

reliability of the document must be apparent before an Immigration Judge

can accept these as the factual admissions of a minor on which he can base

a finding of deportability. Matter of Amaya, supra. These include the

minor’s age, education, intelligence and demeanor, and information con-

cerning whether he was informed of his rights, had an opportunity to con-

tact an adult or an attorney, and understood what he was being asked and

the consequences of his replies, and whether the answers actually came

from him.

Despite of the equivocal contents of the Form I-213, the questionable

procedures under which it was completed, and the respondent’s minority,

the majority seeks to circumvent our interpretation of 8 C.F.R. § 240.48(b

(formerly 8 C.F.R. § 242.16(b)) in Matter of Amaya, by imposing a conclu-

sive presumption concerning the weight to be given to a Form I-213 in the

case of a minor respondent, which would prevent an Immigration Judge

from exercising the necessary function of determining the admissibility and

probative value of fact-based evidence obtained in such cases. This unnec-

essarily diminishes an Immigration Judge’s powers with regard to his or her

fact-finding authority, and, at least in the context of cases involving minor

respondents and in absentia determinations, eviscerates the clear, unequiv-

ocal, and convincing standard that was set forth in Woodby v. INS, supra. As

such, I cannot agree that the evidence presented warrants reversal of the

Immigration Judge’s decision.

IV. CONCLUSION

In sum, this is a not a case that turns on the general admissibility of a

Form I-213. It addresses the admissibility and probative value of a Form I-

213 when an incomplete and unverified version of that document is the sole

evidence presented by the Service to establish deportability in a case involv-

ing a minor respondent. Cf. Matter of Amaya, supra. I conclude both that

797

Interim Decision #3397

the maturity level of a minor in deportation proceedings differs enough, and

the documentation and other evidence provided in such deportation pro-

ceedings differ enough, to make any presumptions in this context inappro-

priate, just as it is inappropriate to presume that they are “incapable of

understanding the content of those allegations and of determining whether

they are true.” Id. at 586.

I do not determine the weight to be given a Form I-213 in the case of a

minor respondent who either appears at his subsequent hearing, or who fails

to appear. In the alternative, I conclude, as we did in Matter of Amaya, that

an Immigration Judge is capable of determining the weight to be given to

the specific evidence before him or her, in the context of an independent

examination and inquiry of the statements made by the minor respondent,

and that the Immigration Judge’s reasoned decision in the instant case

should be upheld. Therefore, I respectfully dissent and would dismiss this

appeal.

798