Richman v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Richman v. Holder

321 F. App'x 670

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 8, 2009

DocketNo. 06-72245

StatusPublished

This text of 321 F. App'x 670 (Richman v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richman v. Holder, 321 F. App'x 670 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Joshua Emanuel Richman, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir.2006). Reviewing de novo, id., we deny the petition for review.

We agree with the BIA that the IJ did not err in admitting Richman’s conviction documents where they were “attested by the official having legal custody of the record or by an authorized deputy,” 8 C.F.R. § 287.6(a), and the record contains a sufficient basis for the documents’ authentication. See Sinotes-Cruz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1190, 1196-97 (9th Cir.2006) (“The guiding principle is that proper authentication requires some sort of proof that the document is what it purports to be.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Joshua Emanuel Richman, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir.2006). Reviewing de novo, id., we deny the petition for review.

We agree with the BIA that the IJ did not err in admitting Richman’s conviction documents where they were “attested by the official having legal custody of the record or by an authorized deputy,” 8 C.F.R. § 287.6(a), and the record contains a sufficient basis for the documents’ authentication. See Sinotes-Cruz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1190, 1196-97 (9th Cir.2006) (“The guiding principle is that proper authentication requires some sort of proof that the document is what it purports to be.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

321 F. App'x 670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richman-v-holder-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack