context: Contrary to Madueno-Gonzalez's contention, the IJ did not violate his due process rights by admitting the 1-213 record of deportable/inadmissible alien, which documented his attempt to enter the United States by misrepresenting his identity and immigration status and which was supported by the preparing officer's testimony.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 588 F.2d 1274, 1278
citation_a.parenthetical: no due process violation because "the bare assertion that a statement is involuntary is insufficient" to prove coercion
citation_a.sentence: See Cuevas-Ortega v. INS, 588 F.2d 1274, 1278 (9th Cir.1979) (no due process violation because “the bare assertion that a statement is involuntary is insufficient” to prove coercion); see also Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir.1995) (“The burden of establishing a basis for exclusion of evidence from a government record falls on the opponent of the evidence, who must come forward with enough negative factors to persuade the court not to admit it.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 45 F.3d 308, 310
citation_b.parenthetical: "The burden of establishing a basis for exclusion of evidence from a government record falls on the opponent of the evidence, who must come forward with enough negative factors to persuade the court not to admit it."
citation_b.sentence: See Cuevas-Ortega v. INS, 588 F.2d 1274, 1278 (9th Cir.1979) (no due process violation because “the bare assertion that a statement is involuntary is insufficient” to prove coercion); see also Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir.1995) (“The burden of establishing a basis for exclusion of evidence from a government record falls on the opponent of the evidence, who must come forward with enough negative factors to persuade the court not to admit it.”).