Lopez Millan v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 29, 2025
• Docket: 24-5148
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 29 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESUS LEOPOLDO LOPEZ MILLAN, No. 24-5148 Agency No. Petitioner, A087-270-754 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 18, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: WARDLAW, MENDOZA, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Jesus Leopoldo Lopez Millan petitions for review of a Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s

decision finding him removable and denying his applications for asylum,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition.

Where the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law, we review

only the BIA’s decision. Guerra v. Barr, 974 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2020). We

review questions of law de novo. Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 665 (9th Cir.

2010).

Lopez challenges the agency’s admission of the proof of his conviction in

the form of a criminal judgment downloaded from the Public Access to Court

Electronic Records (“PACER”) website under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(C). Such

proof may be admissible if it “reasonably indicates the existence of a criminal

conviction.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.41(d); see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(B). The admitted

record of Lopez’s conviction was accompanied by a signed certification from an

immigration officer. The officer certified that the record was downloaded from

PACER, the authorized electronic repository of the federal courts. And the record

contains filing dates and stamps bearing the insignia of the clerk of the federal

district court and the signature of the federal district judge assigned to the case.

Lopez’s conviction record accurately reflects his name and the case number

associated with his conviction. Thus, the record is admissible. See Sinotes-Cruz v.

Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1190, 1196 (2006) (“[P]roper authentication requires some sort

of proof that the document is what it purports to be.” (citation omitted)). And 8

2 24-5148 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(C) does not preclude its admission. Id. (holding that

§ 1229a(c)(3)(C) “establishes the maximum standard for authentication of

electronically transmitted records of conviction, but it does not establish a

minimum standard”).

PETITION DENIED.1

1 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. The motion for a stay of removal, Dkt. # 8, is otherwise denied.

3 24-5148