Silvia Cabrera-Carillo, A089 168 827 (BIA Apr. 30, 2012)

8/13/2019 Silvia Cabrera-Carillo, A089 168 827 (BIA Apr. 30, 2012)

1/15

Barbara StricklndLaw Offices of Brbar Strcklan110 Juniper StreetSan Diego, CA 92101

Name: CABRERA-CARILLO SIVIA

US

Executiv Oce r Immigrion Reew

Bord ofImigaton AppealsQfic ofth Clrk

507 lsbrg Pike, St 00Fa Chc Vrg 24

HSC Oice of Chief Counsel SND880 Front St. Room 1234Sn Diego A 91018834

A089168-827

Date of this notice 4/30/01

ncsed a copy of he Bord' dcn nd de n he boe-eeced c.

Encue

Pnl Mme:v, T LG Ann .Puey,

Siceey

Dnn CrChe Cek

I& ( ' 7 :r!$ Re; iSMk W ,u . s 1lC v/m:wc A4Cite as: Silvia Cabrera-Carillo, A089 168 827 (BIA Apr. 30, 2012)

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished


2/15

U.S Deparment of JusticeExeutive Oce r Imigation Review

Deisio of the Bord of mgatio Appeals

Fa Chuh, rgnia 22041

Fe: A089 168 827 Sa Diego, CA

re SLV CABRACALLO

I REMOVL PROCDGS

PPL

Date

ON BEHALF O RSPODNT Barbara Striclad, sure

ON BEHALF O HS:

CHG

Scott Simpsossstat Chie Counsel

APR 3 0 21

Notce Sec 212(a)(6)(A)(i), & Act [8 U.S.C. 182(a)(6)(A)()] -Preset without beig admited or paroled

APPLCTO: Suppressio teiatio

e respodet appeas om an Imiatio Judges decso dated May 2 200, fdg herremovable as carged ad gratig voluta departure. The Deparmet o Homelad Secry

(DHS) opposes the respodets appeal. he record wll be remaded r rther cosideratio

We review the fdigs o ct made by the Immgatio Judge icudg the deteiato ocrediblity, r clear eor. 8 C.F.R 003 .(d)(3)(i) We revew all other issues, cudig whetherthe paies ae met the relevat burde o proo, ad issues o dscreto, de novo. 8 CF. 003.1( d)(3)(ii)

The dispositive issues i this mater are (1) whether the circumstaces o the respodescotact with HS ocers o December 27 2008 costitute a egregious iolatio o te ourthAmemet; (2) i so whether the respodets statemet to the ocers at that time, wherei sheadmted to beig a atie ad citze o Mexico who was preset i the Uited States without

authoratio should be suppressed as the ut o ths ulawl coduct and (3) assmg that therespodets statemet is subject to suppressio wheter the respodets birh certicate whichwas obaied ad proered as evidece by the DHS ad idicates she was bo i Mexico isadmssible.

reiew o the procedural ad ctual histo helps elucidate the issues O December 27 2008,the respodet was a passeger i a vecle beg drve by her lawl permaet residet husband.

1 We also cosde eim orders issued i this mater by the Immigratio Judge dated October 16,2009, aua 7, 200, ad April 21, 2010.

Cite as: Silvia Cabrera-Carillo, A089 168 827 (BIA Apr. 30, 2012)


3/15

089 68 8

Te respndent was traveling her he in Oceanside Caliia t Encinitas Caia t visiter hsand's aily The vehice was traveling su n I5 when it was ped ver y w DHSer The HS cers indicated ey pulled ver the veicle i wi he respndent wasaveling ecaue he repndent' huand "ted away and iediately lked straight rward avid eye cntact wit he agent upn seeig their veicle (Ex 5 (r identicatin) at 2) TheDHS cers indicated that due t this "nervu ehavir tey decided t cnduct an iigratininspectin n he ccupants the veice (xh 5 (r identifatin) at ) Susequent t tppingthe vehicle te DHS ers interviewed the respndent The respndent tld te DHS ers tathe was a exican citien and that e did nt ave authriatin t e present in te United State(Exiit 5 (r identifcatin) at ) Baed n the inratin gleaned m ti inteiew te DHSissed a r 86 (Ntice t Appear) charging the respndent with eing present in te UnitedStates witht havig een aditted r pared (see Exh ) Te Ntice t ppear was fed whthe mmigratin Curt n anua 5 009 iitiating the intant reva prceedings On arch 272009 the DHS ed a 23 (Recrd eprtae /nadiie Alien) which purprs teralize the ircustance the repndent's enuter wih te DHS er and hersusequent stateent (Exh 5 (r identifcatin)

On ay 26 2009 the respndent fled a tin t suppres evidence and teinate prceedings(Ex 6) Te repndent' tin aleges tat te repndent's encunter w DHS ers underthee circumtances cnstituted an egregs viatin the Furth menent and terere herepndent's stateent and the I23 eriaizing hat stateent uld e sppressed Therepndent als fed evidence in supprt tis tin incuding a w stateent herhuand (Exh 7) n hi tateent the respndent's husand cai hat he did nt even see theDHS cers unti tey activated the igts n their vehicle ehind i and even at that pint ethugt they were plie d he was eing pued ver r a trac viatin (Exh at 2) Therespdent's usand denied ating neus r aviding eye cntat wi the DHS cers Insteade claied tat he and hiwfwere stpped "ecaue we lk like peple Mexic r Cena

erica (Ex 7 at unnuered page 3)

The DHS fled an ppsitin t the respndent's tin t uppress and terinate prceedingsn une 5 009 (x 8) Alng wth that ppitin the DHS smited a irth certifcate thatpurprted t relate t the respndent's sn and the respndent's arriage certifcate which thindicate the repndent was in Mexi (xh 8 at unnuered page 78) Tee dcuentswere apparently gleaned directly he respndent's wn fing in nd prceedings n theppsitin the DHS argued tat the repndet had nt set rth a pria cie swng tat the HSengaged in eegius ndut during its ecunter with the respndent; tat te DHS was therereunder n igatin t denstrate hw it tained the evidence cntaned in te I23; that evenassuing arguend here was an egregius vilatin the Furth endent the identiy the

respndent is alway admissie as wel as any evidene independenty aied ased n atidentit; and that the evidence was adissile ecaue its disver was inevitale (Ex 8) Finallythe DHS reuested hat in the event te Imigratin udge deterig te repdent ade apria cie wing an egregiu vilatin the urh Aendent he igrati udgeshud chedule "a uppresin hearing were the Departent wil present dcuent and/rwitnesse and ther evidene t juti the ean y which it tained its evidence (Exh 8 at 5)(ephasis i rgina)

2



4/15

A089 168 827

On ugst 3, 008, the DHS ed a Mexica Naional Popaion Regisry (see Exh 11 (ridenicatio) The espoent objeced o his evience by way of a October 1 3, 009 lig (ExhI 2) The respondet arged tha this docmen should be excuded ecause it was o aueticaed;itwas a potected persoal ocument; it had o indicia of eliabiiy; a because i had no proaiveae On Ocobe 6 009, he Immigaion Judge issue a inerm oder regaring eespondent's motio o suppess and eiate poceeigs (Exh 4) The Immigraio Jdge rs"tenaivey ud a e esponde established he cicumstances of her encoer wih he DS

ocers constited a egregious vioaio of he responden's Forh Amenmen ighs and hate-21 3 was heree suppessible (Exh. 4 a 4). Nex the Immigratio Jge cocled a he

maiage cericae of the espode ad he husban an he bih ceicae of thei chil weepar of the bond recor and coul ot be consiee in he emova proceedigs Fiay, heImaion uge indicaed ha he woud give o evienia weigh o he exica aioaPopuaion Registry because it was ot auhenticae hee was no way o deermine wheherhe peso efeeced i he rm was acuay he responden, and he rm did ot estabish ealienage of the peso efeeced in he m Based o hese cocsions te mmigration gedeteied ha he DHS had ot met its iitial brden of poving the responden's aieage Te

Imigraion Judge gave he DS uti Decembe 6 009, o sbmi evidence of the espode'saieage and iicated that if no sch evidence was sbmied, emoval proceedings agains herespoen woud be terminated (Exh 4 at 4) Te Immigaion Judge id o schedue a

evideiary hearing o issues elaed o he espondent's motio o suppress evidece and einaeproceeings

O December 5, 009, the DHS ed a copy of a docmet i repesented as he respoe'sexican birt cericae, a ceied tansation of hat documen, a a motio requestig he

admission of these documets ino evidence (Exh 5) On anuary 7 200, he Immigaion udgeissue a short order gantig he DS moio o admit he bih cericae ino evidence (Exh6) he mmigaio Jdge checked he boxes inicaig tha he moion was grane because a

respose o he moion ha not bee ed by e respoden and because good cause ha beeesabished Aso o Janua 7 00 the espoden e an oppositio o he DHS moion o amitebirh cericate ino evidece (Exh ) I ths opposiion he respondet argued ta he birh

cericae shold be exce om evidence becase i is he fri of an nlawl aes (Exh 1 a3) Aditionay, e respoden arged hat he docment should no be consideed probative ofhe responden's aienage because it was not ahenicaed and because a similariy eween heesponen's ame ad he ame on he birth cericae is isciet o esabish he irth ceicatereaes o he espoden O auay 20 00 he responet e a moio o ecosider hemmigration Judges ecision admiig he birth cericate ino evidence I this moion herespoen eqested ta he Immigaio Jdge consider he argumes she peseted i heranay 00, ing, an indicaed her obecions o the DHS were e ate becase esponden's

conse was i e hospital between December , 2009 ad anuary 4, 01 0 On Al, 01 0,he Immigatio ge issed a decision deying te respoden's moion o recosier (Exh )he Iiaion dge dened te moion becase te esponent ied to aege ay eos of cor aw in he mmigaion Jdge's aary 00 oe admitig he birh certicae ito evidecead becaue e hospitization of the respoden's counsel di o excuse he ae ed opposiionbecause he esponden coud have led an exension (Exh 22 at 3-4)

3



5/15

089 68 827

n ay 24, 00 h Immgran Jdg ssd an ra dcsn cncdng ha h bthcrta sbmtd by h DHS n Dcmbr 5, 009 ad admd n vdnc n Janay 7,00, rad h rspndn basd n h smay h nams and sabshd h rspndnsanag J a 3-4) h Immgran Jdg hr cncdd ha h rspndn had nprsnd any vdnc a aw n h Und Sas Th Immgran Jdg hrrnd h chargs rmvab had bn sabshd by car and cnvncng vdnc Thrspndn rqsd and rcvd ps-harng vary dpar h nsan appa wd

Upn d nv rvw, w cncd ha h Immgran Jdg cmmd w rvrsb rrrsn hs prcdngs Fs h Immgran Jdg d by ng w h prcdrarqrmns r adjdcang a mn spprss vdnc basd pn an agd rgsvan h Frh Amndmn Spccay, nc h Immran Jdg dnd ha hrspndn had sbmd scn vdnc sabsh a prma cas an gs FrhAmndmn van, a harng shd hav bn schdd prm h DHS prsn vdnc

ha rspndns samn ad h rsta 3 wr band by ga mans Mater ofBurgos,5 I&N D 78, 79 BA 975);see also Mater ofRamirez-Sanchez 7 &N Dc 503 50506

BIA 980); Mater of Wong, 3 I&N Dc 80 82 BIA 97) Insad, h Immgan Jdgxcdd h I-3 and rdrd th HS sbm ndpndn vdnc h rspndnsanag basd sy n th rspndn's mn and h 3 wh hdng an vdnharng W n n hs rgard ha h DHS rqsd sch a harng br h Imman Jdgand br hs Bard Exh 9 a 5; DHS Br a 56) W cncd ha h Immgran Jdgcmmd rvrsb r by xcdng h 3 wh rs gvng h DHS an pprny prsn vdnc dmnsrang h nan hrn was band gay

Scnd, assmng argnd ha h Immgran Jdg prpry drmnd ha h HScmmd angs van h rspndn's Fh Amndmn rghs and hrr h23 s nadmssb, w cncd ha h Imman Jdg prvdd nscn ndngs ac

d ga anayss r s drmn n appa h admssby h dcmn ha h DHS

I s wsabshd ha h xcsnary r s gnray n appcab n dpran rrmva) prcdngs INS v Lopez-Mendoza, 468 S 03 038 (984) See also Mater ofSandoval, 7 I&N Dc 70 7783 BIA 979) h xcsna ars n h cnx cmnaprcdngs and rqrs h spprssn n sch prcdngs vdnc ha s h annaw as, r hr a cndc whch vas th Fth Amndmn In INSv. Lopez-Mendoza, supra h Sprm Cr pn th pssby ha h xcsnay mgh as appy n mmgran prcdngs nvvng gs vans ha ransgss nns

ndamna ss 468 US a 050 rvr, th nd Sas C Appas r hNnh Crc, h aw whch cnrs hr, has spccay hd ha h xcsn dsappy n mmgran prcdngs, th xn rqrng h csn vdnc ha hasbn band s h rs a dbra van h Frh Amndmn, r as h rs cndc ha a rasnab cr shd hav knwn s n van h Cnsn SeeLopezRodrguez v Muksey, 536 F3d 0 (9 Cr 008), reh 'g en ban dened sub nomLopezRodrguez v Holder, 560 F3d 098 9h Cr 009); Orhorhaghe v INS, 38 F3d 488(9 Cr 994) Goalez-Rivera v INS, F3d 44 9h Cr 994) Adamson v CIR,745 Fd 54 (9 Cr 984)

4



6/15

089 168 827

lms s e respoes Mex birh cerfe. The reor oes o reec h he ImmgroJge equey cosiere he mssiby o he brh erfce in ligh o s previos fng he respoens seme o DHS s sppressibe e o he egregios voio o he ohmenmen. Our revew o he reor iices h he brh ceife ws e r "goose bse po he simiriy o he mes o he brh erfe he respoens nme

(xh 16 I.J. Dec 34. The reor oes no reec h e Immigro Juge spefcy meny eeon regrg wheher he birh efe is he o illegl serch On ppe,he respoe coes b r e llegly obie semen, he DHS wo o hve beebe o oce he brh ceifce, rges heere h i shol be exle s he o iegl seh (Respoes Br. 1-2 The DHS oes h he brh erife s missbebese he espones iey is never sppressibe (DHS Bre 67.

We onle h rem s we r io consieio o wheher, po figo egregios violo o he respoes oh meme rghs, he brh efce smissible uer e cirumsces prese hs se. We gree wih he DHS h herespoes eiy s o sbje o sppresso h nepene eviee obine bse on

he espoes ey is missble (DS Br 67 ee IN v LopezMendoza upra 03940 (sg "he boy or iey o ee or respoe rm or iv proeeing snever sel sppressbe s i o nlwl res, even i i is oee h uwl es,ser, or neogio ocue.; U. v De Toro Gudno, 376 F.3 997 9 Cr 2004; ntedtate v OrozcoRco 589 .2 433, 435 (9h Cr1978;ee Hoonapa v N 575 2 735, 738(9h Cr. 1978, mofe by, 586 F.2 755 (9h Cr1978 (holg h orth memevolo oes o requre exlsio o evece iepeey obie om gey msrverecors; Mater of andova upra, 79 (sig "Oce ens iey s lee, he Servec eirey vo ggeing he exluso rue cses where omes lwlly heSeves possessio evee lwl presee

However his ppe oes o prese suio where he DHS ee he respoeseiy qere s elero bses or reviewe fe ssoie wh respone of eviee o iege lrey lwlly is possessio Inse, he brh cerife wsqure by he DHS er poeeigs i hs mer ommene we e he legeorh meme violo oce I ppes he DHS use he specifc irmoegring he respoes ple n e o brh cqire rig he llege eg eogiono he respone, o loce he bih erifce I is o seevie o us hese ypes o sre he eqve o he responens "eiy s e DHS rgme ssmes Moreover, whehe o obng he brh cerfe ws "epeen o he Forh memen vioo nhe sense h birh cerife ws o recly obe g he lleg sop subseqenineogo, is eee upo h o bese whou he eile bogrphiiio obie ring he eogion, ocig he bih cerife wol hve beenexremely nlikey ee Wong un v U 371 US. 471 487-88 (963 (si h conseoo evice obie bo rely irecy om o h vole he Fourh memes be by opero o he exclsory rue Give hese oseros, we f t hemmion Jges eciso, whch me o evee he ome prpore o be herespoes brh cerfce r "goo cse show wiho lyss o he isses reg o hepplbly o he exso rle, oes o provie sce bss r ppelle revew ee

5



7/15

A089 68 8

S v RareSadoval, 8 d 39 396 (9 Cr 989) (dscusg e ree excepos oe excusoay ue: depede source aeuaed bas ad evabe dscovey)

g of e regog we coclude a remad requred remad e mmgraoJudge sod provde e opporuy r e DHS o subm addoa evdece a ecrcumsacesof e DHS ocer ecouer w e respode was o a egregous volaoofe ou Amedme f e evdece submed by e DHS esablses s ecouer w oa eegous voaon or was a e mmgrao Judge soud cosder ay evdece obaeddurg e ecouer cludg e 3 However f e mmgrao Judge deermes eecouer cosue a eegous volao of e our Amedme e mmgrao Judgesoud deee weer e br cecae submed by e DHS s admssble as e fru ofs voao ad weer ay of e excepos o e exclusoa rue appy o a documeuder e crcumsaces prese s cae Accordgy e llowg order w be eered

RDER e record s remaded r rer proceedgs cose w e regog opoad r e ery of a ew decso Lf

R T BA :

6



8/15

US DEPARTENT OF JUSICEEXECUTVE OFFICE FOR IIGION REVEW

IGION COUR

San Diego California

File A 89 168 827 Date: May 2 2010

n the Matter of

SLVIA CRELLO N REMOVAL PROCEEDNGS

Respondent

CGE:

APPLCAN:

APPECES:

Section 212a) 6) A) i) of the mmigration andNationality Act present without admission orparole

ermination of proceedings; postconclusion

voluntary departure

N BEHLF OF RESPOND: ON BEHF OF THE DEPARTMENTOF HME SECURIY:

Barbara A. Strickland, Esquire110 Juniper StreetSan Diego, California 92101

J. Scott SimpsonAssistant Chief CounselSan Diego California

R DECISION OF HE IIGTION JUDGE

Respondent herein is alleged to be a native and citizen

of Mexico She was placed in removal proceedings on December

27, 2008, with te issuance of a Notice to Appear Exibit 1) . In

this document te government alleges tat Respondent is not a


9/15

ctien or a national o the United States but is a natie and

itien o eio who arried in the United States at or near San

Ysidro Caliornia on or about Noember 28 2006. he goernment

alleges that Respondent was not then admitted or paroled ater

inspetion by an Immigration Oier and Respondent is harged

with remoability under Setion 22a} 6 A} i} o the Immigration

and Nationality Act as an alien present in the United Sates

without being admitted or paroled or who arried in the United

Sates at any time or plae other than as designated by the

Atorney General

During the ourse o hese proceedings Respondent

through ounsel denied the truth o the atual allegations

ontained in the Notie o Appear and ontested remoability

Respondent delined to designate a ountry or remoal

purposes i neessary and this Court at the suggestion o he

Department o Homeland Seurity designated eio or such

purposes

Respondent indiated at the aster Calendar session

conduted beore the undersigned on arch 27 2009 that she would

be seeking termination o proceedings but i remoable would

seek preonlusion oluntary departure under Section 20Ba) o

the Act.

At the ndiidual Calendar session conducted this date

Respondent indicated that she would not be seeking preconclusion

oluntary departure but was requesting postconclusion olunary

A 89 68 827 2 ay 2 200


10/15

(

parture pursuant to Section 20Bb of the Act.

Th burden is on the Department of Homeland Securit to

establish Respondent's removbilit b clear and convincing

evidence.

The government hs submitted to this Court certain

documentation in support of its obligation to establish

Respondents removabilit.

On December 15 2009 the governent submitted to this

Court a birth certificate and translation in the name of Silvia

CbreraCarrillo. This ocumentation establishes that on March

2 1990 Silvia CabreraCarrillo was born in Ensenada Baja

California Mexico

Although Respondent has objecte to this documentation

and certain other evience the Court has admitted the birth

certificat into the Record of Proceedings b virtue of its order

dated Januar 7 2010 see Exhibit 16 .

Although Responent rquested reconsidertion of the

Courts order admitting such evidence this requst to rconsider

was denied for the reasons st forth in this Courts orer dated

April 21 2010 see Exhibit 22 which sets forth the entire

histor of this case.

This Court hs amitted into the record the birth

certificate based upon the similarit of nmes There is no

indication in the record that Rspondent enis that this

documentation reates to her. As the government has pointed out

A 89 168 827 3 Ma 2 2010


11/15

n its motion to admit the birth certificate where a charge of

removability is based on documentary evidence bearing a name

identical to that of the Respondent, the Immigration Judge may

reasonably infer that such evidence relates to the Respondent in

the absence of evidence that it does not relate to the Respondent

See United States v Rebon-Delgado 467 F2d 11 9th Cir 1972) ;atter of Li, Interim Dec 2451 BIA 1975)

he Court concluded on the basis of the submission of

the birth certificate that the government had established that

Respondent was born abroad and is therefore an alien

he Court pointed out that under Section 291 of the

Immigration and ationality Act, once alienage has been

established, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show the time

place and manner of her entry into the United States In the

absence of any such evidence, Respondent is presumed to be in the

United States in violation of the law

Although afforded the opportunity to submit evidence

related to the time, place, and manner of entry, the Respondent

had presented no such documentation or evidence to the Court

hat being the case, Respondent is presumed to be in the United

States in violation of the law

On the basis of the entire record before me and for the

reasons stated in the record and in this oral decision, the Court

concludes that the government has established by clear and

convincing evidence the Respondents removability

A 89 168 827 4 ay 24, 2010


12/15

Respodet has, as earlier oted, declied to desigate

coutry for remoal purposes if ecessry ad this Court has

desigated Mexico. At the Master Caledar sessio coducted

before the udersiged o March 27 2009 Respodet idicated

that although the Court was desigatig Mexico she had o fear of

retuig to tht coutry ad would ot be seekig asylum

withholdig of remoal ad/or relief uder Article uder the

Uited Ntios Coetio Agaist orture

sofar as this Court has cocluded that Respodets

remoability has bee properly established, her request for

teiatio of proceedigs must be deied

espodet has requested olutary departure at the

coclusio of proceedigs uder Sectio 20Bb} of the Act ad the

goermet has idicated that it is ot opposed to a grat of this

relief. he request for olutary departure will be grated d

the maximum period of time that may be grated for relief is 60

dys As a coditio to this grat of olutary departure,

Respodet is required to post a olutary departure bod i the

sum of $500 withi fie busiess days Should Respodet fail to

timely post said bod ad/or timely depart the Uited States i

the course of this Court's order, the priilege of olutry

deprture shall be withdraw without further otice or proceedigs

ad Respodet shall thereupo be ordered remoe from the Uited

States to Mexico o the basis of the charge cotaied i the

Notice to Appear

A 89 168 82 5 May 2, 2010


13/15

(

Should Repondent fail to timely depart the United

tate he hall be ubected to a civil penalty which thi Court

et at $3000 and he will be ineligible for a period of 10 year

for cancellation of removal voluntary departure adutment of

tatu change of tatu and regitry

If Repondent appeal thi deciion to the Board of

Immigration ppeal he mut within 30 day of filing the appeal

provide ufficient proof of having timely poted the voluntary

departure bond ince the Board will not reintate the voluntary

departure period in it final order if uch timely proof i not

ubmitted If Repondent reerve her right to appeal but doe

not appeal ad intead file a potdeciion Motion to Reopen or

reconider during the voluntary departure period the grant of

volutary departure will be terminated automatically and the

alternate Order of Removal will take effect immediately

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Repondent requet for

termination of proceeding be denied

IT IS URTHER ORDERED the Repondent be granted in lieu

of an Order of Removal the privilege of departing the United

State voluntarily at her own expene uch departure to occur on

or before July 23, 2010.

IT IS URTHER ORDERED that a a condition of thi grant

of voluntary departure Repondent mut pot a voluntary departure

bond in the um of $500 no later than cloe of buine on June 1,

2010

89 168 827 6 May 24 2010


14/15

IT IS FURTHER OERED tat sould Respondent fail to

timely post said bond and/or timely depart te United States te

privilege of voluntary departure sall be witdrawn witout

furter notice or proceedings and Respondent sall tereupon be

ordered removed from te United States to Meico on te basis of

te carge contained in te Notice to Appear.

A 89 168 827

KEETH A BAGLEYImmigration Judge

7

W, OR&OPl

ay 24, 2010


15/15

ERAE PAGE

hereby certify that the attached proceeding before

KENNE A. BAGLEY, in the matter of:

SLVA BREARRLLO

A 89 168 827

San Diego, alifornia

was held as herein appears, and that this is the original

transcript thereof for the file of the Executive Office for

mmigration Review

ced/bjn

hristy Davis, ranscriber

YORK SENOGP SERVES, N.34 North George StreetYork Pennsylvania 174011266(717) 84-0077

July 15, 2010

mpletion Date

Silvia Cabrera-Carillo, A089 168 827 (BIA Apr. 30, 2012)

Documents

Transcript of Silvia Cabrera-Carillo, A089 168 827 (BIA Apr. 30, 2012)