Francisco Rodriguez-Quiroz v. Loretta E. Lynch, 835 F.3d 809

Background

Rodriguez-Quiroz, a Mexican national, entered lawfully on an I-94/border‑crossing card on Oct. 6, 2004; DHS records (TECS-II) also show a departure Jan. 21, 2005 and no subsequent lawful reentry.
DHS charged him with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) for being present without admission/parole; burden shifted to Rodriguez to prove by clear and convincing evidence he was lawfully present from a prior admission.
Rodriguez produced bank records, deposit slips (two stamped Jan. 21, 2005), testimony from his wife and business partner, and a handwriting expert to show he remained in Rochester on Jan. 21, 2005.
DHS relied primarily on a TECS‑II printout showing a Jan. 21, 2005 departure and on I-213 reports (draft and final) indicating an entry without inspection; DHS refused to disclose how TECS departure data were generated.
The IJ credited the TECS departure and sustained removal; the BIA affirmed, treating TECS and the I-213s as trustworthy. Rodriguez petitioned for review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether TECS departure entry is reliable evidence of Jan. 21, 2005 departure	TECS departure lacks foundation; bank records and testimony show he was in U.S. that day, rebutting any presumption	TECS printout is presumptively reliable public record and suffices to show departure	TECS departure lacked foundation and, because rebutted by Rodriguez, the finding of departure on Jan. 21, 2005 is unsupported by substantial evidence
Whether I-213 draft/final establish unlawful entry (EWI)	I‑213s are inconsistent and Rodriguez was denied chance to elicit testimony about their preparation; reliance on them without opportunity to rebut is unfair	I‑213 forms are inherently trustworthy; absence of direct rebuttal means respondent failed to overcome them	Court remanded to allow Rodriguez to present evidence about preparation of draft and final I‑213s before using them as sole proof of EWI
Whether IJ’s refusal to subpoena/call DHS agents or permit Rodriguez to testify about I‑213s was prejudicial	Denial prevented meaningful rebuttal of I‑213s and foundational challenge to TECS; prejudiced respondent	DHS argued burden was on respondent to show time/place/manner of entry and evidence was unnecessary	Court found prejudice in denying opportunity to challenge I‑213s and remanded for limited further proceedings
Whether substantial evidence supports denial of adjustment of status	Record lacks reliable evidence of departure or of EWI; thus Rodriguez met clear-and-convincing standard to show prior lawful admission	BIA/IJ determinations that TECS and I‑213s supported inadmissibility are entitled to deference	Court concluded record lacks substantial evidence of the Jan. 21, 2005 departure and remanded to allow challenge to I‑213s; petition granted

Key Cases Cited

Etenyi v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 1003 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for BIA legal determinations and deference to BIA)
Garcia-Gonzalez v. Holder, 737 F.3d 498 (8th Cir. 2013) (deference to BIA interpretation)
Goswell-Renner v. Holder, 762 F.3d 696 (8th Cir. 2014) (substantial-evidence rule for administrative fact findings)
Kim v. Holder, 560 F.3d 833 (8th Cir. 2009) (public-official generated records treated as presumptively reliable)
United States v. Puente, 826 F.2d 1415 (5th Cir. 1987) (description of how TECS entries for vehicle license plates were generated)
United States v. Orozco, 590 F.2d 789 (9th Cir. 1979) (TECS/CBP data-entry procedures at border checkpoints)
United States v. Cabrera-Beltran, 660 F.3d 742 (4th Cir. 2011) (TECS records of border crossings are non‑testimonial and reliable under certain proofs)
Gutierrez-Rostran v. Lynch, 810 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 2016) (cannot ignore admissible and credible evidence; must articulate reasons to reject)
Nyama v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 812 (8th Cir. 2004) (admission of evidence must be probative and fundamentally fair)
Thiam v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2007) (appellate forfeiture/waiver principles)