VELASQUEZ

                                                       Interim Decision 4:3011




                         MATTER OF VELASQUEZ

                         In Deportation Proceedings

                                   A-26389579

                       Decided by Board April 9, 1986'

(1) 'There is a strong presumption that an attorney's decision to concede an alien's
  deportability in a motion for change of venue was a reasonable tactical decision,
  and, absent a showing of egregious circumstances, such a concession is binding
  upon the alien as an admission.
(2) It is immaterial whether an alien actually authorized his attorney to concede de-
  portability in a motion for change of venue, for ea long CIO the motion was pre-
  pared and filed by an attorney of record on behalf of his alien client, it is prima
  facie regarded as authorized by the alien and is admissible as evidence.
(3) An allegation that an attorney was authorized to represent an alien only to the
  extent necessary to secure a reduction in the amount of bond does not render in-
  admissible the attorney's concession of deportability in a pleading filed in regard
  to another matter, for there is no "limited" appearance of counsel in immigration
  proceedings.

CHARGE:
 Order: Act of 1952—Sec. 2111(aX2) [

(aX2))—Entered without inspec-
                      tion
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:                          ON BEHALF OF SERVICE:
 Isaias D. Torres, Esquire                         Benjamin D Somers
 Lopez, Medina, Ramirez & Torres                   General Attorney
 2990 Richmond, Suite 205
 Houston, Texas 77098

BY: Milho1lan, Chairman; Dunne, Morris,. and Vacca, Board Members



   The respondent has appealed the oral decision of the immigra-
tion judge rendered at the deportation hearing of August 17, 1983.
That decision finds the respondent deportable pursuant to section
241(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 

(aX2) (1982), as an alien who entered the United States with-
out inspection, but grants the respondent the privilege of voluntary
departure in lieu of deportation. The appeal shall be dismissed.
                                        377
 Interim Decision #3011

   The issues raised by the respondent in this appeal require some
 understanding of the circumstances surrounding both his arrest
 and the granting of his motion for change of venue. Since the facts
 pertaining to these events are not discussed in the immigration
judge's decision, we think it important to set them forth.
   The respondent was arrested by officers of the Immigration and
 Naturalization Service on April 30, 1982, while he and several
 other men were leaving their place of work in Channelview,
Texas. 1 The respondent and the other men were taken to the Serv-
ice offices in Houston, Texas. There the Service interviewed the re-
spondent and commenced deportation proceedings against him by
issuing an Order to Show Cause, Notice of Hearing, and Warrant
for Arrest of Alien (Form I-221S), alleging that he is a native and
citizen of Colombia, who entered the United States without inspec-
tion in 1977, and charging him with deportability pursuant to sec-
tion 241(a)(2) of the Act. The Service determined not to release the
respondent on bond but to keep him in custody pursuant to 

(a) (1982). Accordingly, the respondent was flown to
the Service's detention and processing center in El Paso, Texas,
where he was kept in custody for 9 days until he secured his re-
lease. Since the Service had determined to keep the respondent in
custody in El Pane, it also scheduled his deportation hearing for
that city.
   On May 7, 1982, an attorney (Velarde) in El Paso filed a Notice
of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative (Form G-28),
notifying the Service that he was the respondent's attorney of
record. On July 22, 1982, Velarde submitted a motion for change of
venue requesting that the respondent's deportation hearing be
moved to Houston, Texas. In the motion, attorney Velarde admit-
ted all of the factual allegations in the Order to Show Cause, con-
ceded the respondent's deportability, and requested that the hear-
ing be moved to Houston, because the respondent lived in that city
and would find it. too inconvenient and costly to travel to El Paso.
When the Service did not oppose the motion, the immigration
judge issued an order on August 12, 1982, granting the request for
a change of venue.
  On March 14, 1983, a new attorney (Torres), located in Houston,
entered his appearance as counsel for the respondent. At that time,
  1   In an affidavit the respondent filed in conjunction with a motion to suppress
admissions he made at the time of his arrest and questioning by the Service, the
respondent has attegf.a.r1 ft, his version of the facts surrounding. his arrest. The Serv-
ice did not present any evidence about the circumstances of the respondent's arrest.
Accordingly, we have relied on his affidavit for the sequence of events surrounding
his arrest.

                                          378
                                            Interim Decision #3011

 Torres also filed a suppression motion, requesting a separate hear
 ing to determine whether admissions made by the respondent at
 the time of his arrest were coerced or obtained in violation of the
 respondent's fourth and fifth amendment rights and should be ex-
 cluded from evidence at his forthcoming deportation hearing. This
 motion was supported by the respondent's affidavit attesting to the
facts surrounding his arrest and questioning by the Service and by
various newspaper articles describing the Service's general proce-
 dures during workplace searches.
   The respondent's deportation hearing was convened in Houston,
Texas, on August 17, 1983. The respondent was present at the hear-
 ing with his new counsel, Torres, who renewed the motion to sup-
 press. The immigration judge denied. the motion. Thereafter, the
respondent refused to admit the allegations and charge of deport-
ability and invoked the fifth amendment privilege against self in-
 crimination when asked to testify about his immigration status.
Since it is a crime to enter the United States without inspection,
the immigration judge found the respondent had properly invoked
the privilege against self incrimination. See section 275 of the Act,

 (1982). In order to prove the respondent's deport-
ability, therefore, the Service introduced into evidence the motion
for change of venue containing the admissions and the concession
of deportability that had been made by the respondent's first coun-
sel, Velarde. Counsel Torres objected to admission of the motion.
He contended that the respondent had never authorized Velarde to
concede deportability. Torres also contended that the admissions
and the concession of deportability exceeded the scope of Velarde's
representation of the respondent, because the respondent had un-
derstood Velarde to be representing the respondent only to the
extent necessary to obtain a reduction in the amount of his bond.
Counsel Torres requested that the respondent be given an opportu-
nity to testify in support of these contentions. The immigration
judge denied the request and admitted the motion into evidence.
The immigration judge found the admissions and the concession in
the motion to be sufficient to prove the respondent's deportability
as charged. The immigration judge denied a request by counsel
Torres to permit the respondent to testify about the facts surround-
ing his treatment by the Service at the time of his arrest and ques-
tioning. The request was denied on the ground that the circum-
stances surrounding these events were immaterial to the admissi-
bility of the motion for change of venue.
   On appeal, the respondent has argued that his arrest and subse-
quent questioning by the Service violated his constitutional rights
and that the immigration judge erred in denying the motion for a

                                 8751
Interim Decision #3011

 separate suppression hearing. The respondent has also argued that
 the motion for change of venue was improperly admitted into evi-
 dence because it was not authenticated and because the admissions
 contained in the motion were not authorized by the respondent. He
 also contends that his right to confront the witnesses against him
 and his right to due process were violated when the immigration
judge refused the request to allow the respondent to testify that his
 first counsel, Velarde, was never authorized to concede deport-
 ability.
    We reject all of these contentions.
    The immigration judge correctly denied the motion for a sepa-
 rate suppression hearing. The respondent requested a suppression
 hearing in order to litigate the legality of his arrest and the admis-
 sibility of unspecified admissions that he alleges resulted from his
 arrest and detention. However, the exclusionary rule, which re-
 quires a court to suppress evidence that is the fruit of an unlawful
arrest or of other official conduct that violates the fourth amend-
ment, does not apply in deportation proceedings. INS v. Lopez Men-
                                                                 -


doza, 

 (1984). Moreover, the Service never introduced,
or attempted to introduce, any evidence or admissions obtained
from the respondent at the time of his arrest and detention. The
only evidence submitted by the Service was the motion for change
of venue, which was filed by attorney Velarde almost 3 months
after the respondent's arrest. Since it was filed well after the re-
spondent's arrest, this motion is not tainted by any violations of
the fourth or fifth amendments that may have occurred at the time
of the respondent's arrest. Magallanes Damian v. INS, 

(9th Cir. 1986); Hoonsilapa v. INS, 

 (9th Cir.), modified,

 (9th Cir. 1978). Thus, the motion to suppress and its
supporting affidavit were immaterial to the admissibility of the
motion for change of venue, and the request for a suppression hear-
ing was properly denied. Cf. Magallanes-Damian v. INS, supra;
Hoonsilapa v. INS, supra.
   The contention that the motion for change of venue was errone-
ously admitted because it was not sufficiently authenticated has no
merit. The regulations specifically authorize the immigration judge
to receive into evidence any prior written statement, made by a re-
spondent or by any other person, that is material and relevant to
the issues in the case. See 

(c) (1986). Furthermore,
documentary evidence in deportation proceedings need not comport
with the strict judicial rules of evidence; rather, in order to be ad-
missible, such evidence need only be probative and its use funda-
mentally fair, so as not to deprive an alien of due process of law.
See, e.g., Trias-Hernandez v. INS, 

 (9th Cir. 1975);
                                 380
                                                       Interim Decision #3011

Martin-Mendoza v. INS, 

 (9th Cir. 1974); cf. INS v.
Lopez Mendoza, supra, at 1050-51 & n.5.
   The motion for change of venue is highly probative because it
contains admissions and a concession that prove the respondent's
 deportability. Further, use of the motion was not fundamentally
 unfair. The motion previously had been submitted and accepted as
 part of the respondent's file, as noted by the Service stamp appear-
ing on the upper left-hand corner of the motion. Thus, it already
was a part of the official record of this proceeding at the time it
was put forward by the Service as proof of the respondent's deport-
ability. In addition, the respondent has not disputed that Velarde
was counsel of record at the time the motion was filed; nor has the
 respondent contended that it is not Velarde's signature that ap-
pears on the motion. We also note that the record contains the
signed August 1982 order by the immigration judge, granting a
change of venue from El Paso to Houston, which obviously was
issued in response to the motion. Indeed, absent this document, the
respondent's hearing would have been improperly venued in Hous-
ton. Thus, the nature of the immigration judge's 1982 order also
serves to authenticate the motion. Cf. Winel v. United States, 

 (8th Cir_ 1966)     .



   Moreover, the conduct of both the respondent and his second at-
torney, Torres, during the course of this matter is evidence from
which the immigration judge reasonably could infer that the
motion for change of venue is authentic. Conduct that forms the
basis for inference is evidence. United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v.
Tod, 

 (1923). The respondent presumably knew
whether he had asked attorney Velarde to secure a change of
venue, and, if the respondent had not, then he or attorney Torres
had good reason to speak up and object at some point in these pro-
ceedings to the change. Neither the respondent nor counsel Torres
ever did so. Under these circumstances, the failure to contest the
change of venue is evidence from which we reasonably can infer
that the motion is what it purports to be. /d.a

  2 The presence of other matters of record that reasonably authenticate the

motion and of conduct in this case from which we can draw an inference that the
motion is authentic distinguishes the respondent's case from Iran v. INS, 

 (9th Cir. 1981), in which the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit found there was no evidence from which an immigration judge could
have inferred the authenticity of a disputed piece of documentary evidence. 

. While the Ninth Circuit in Iran described several sgueptalde methods of fairly
showing that a challenged document is what it purports to be, the court did not pre-
clude the use of reasonable inferences drawn from other materials already of record
or from an alien's conduct See 

 at 472 n.8.

                                        381
 Interim Decision *3011

    The immigration judge also correctly denied the respondent's re-
  quest to testify about the scope of Velarde's authority to concede
 deportability in the motion for change of venue. The respondent's
 rights to present evidence and to confront the evidence against him
 are not absolute; they are circumscribed by the due process concept
 of reasonableness. See section 242(b) of the Act, 

(b)
 (1982); Marroguin-Manriquez v. INS, 

 (3d Cir.
 1983). Thus, the immigration judge's refusal to allow the respond-
 ent to testify violated his statutory and due process rights only if
 the refusal was unreasonable. It was not, for the testimony the re-
 spondent proffered would not have rendered inadmissible either
 the concession of deportability or the motion.
    Absent egregious circumstances, a distinct and formal admission
 made before, during, or even after a proceeding by an attorney
 acting in his professional capacity binds his client as a judicial ad-
 mission. Magallanes Damian v. INS, supra; Thorsteinsson v. INS,
 

, 1367 68 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 

 (1984);
                    -


 see also 31A C.J.S. Evidence § 361 (1964). Thus, when an admission
 is made as a tactical decision by an attorney in a deportation pro-
 ceeding, the admission is binding on his alien client and may be
 relied upon as evidence of deportability. Magallanes-Damian v.
 INS, supra; Rodriguez-Gonzalez v. INS,        

 (9th Cir.
 1981); United States v. Guerra de Aguilera,    

 (9th Cir.
  1979).
    Counsel Velarde's admissions of fact and concession of deport-
  ability in the motion for change of venue come within these rules.
  The admissions and concession are distinct and formal, for they
  appear in a pleading filed with the immigration court. The admis-
  sions and concession were made by the respondent's attorney
  acting in his professional capacity because they were made by Ve-
  larde at a time when he was the respondent's official attorney of
  record. In addition, there is a strong presumption, which the re-
  spondent did not proffer any evidence to overcome, that counsel
  Velarde's decision to concede deportability in the motion was a rea-
  sonable tactical decision. Cf. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
. 668, 689 (1984). This presumption is enhanced in this case by the
 factors considered, and the nature of the inquiry, in determining
 whether to grant an alien's request for a change of venue. The de-
 cision. whether to grant or deny a motion for change of venue rests
 solely in the discretion of an immigration judge. See, e.g., La
 Franca v. INS, 

 (2d Cir. 1969). In determining whether
 to grant such a motion, an immigration judge usually considers
 such factors as, inter alia, administrative convenience, expeditious
 treatment of the case, the location of the witnesses, and the costs of

                                  382
                                               Interim Decision #3011

transporting witnesses or evidence to a new situs. See, e.g., La
Franca v. INS, supra, at 689 and n.10; United States ex rel. Mas-
toras v. McCandless, 

 (3d Cir. 1932); Calderon v.
Moyers, 

 (N.D. Ill. 1982). Thus, attorney Velarde rea-
sonably may have concluded that by conceding deportability he
would relieve the Service of its burden of producing the evidence
and witnesses needed to prove the respondent's deportability and
thereby heighten the chance that the Service would not oppose a
change of venire.
  In any event, the respondent has not proffered any evidence to
show that the admissions and the concession of deportability made
on his behalf Joy counsel Velarde were the result of unreasonable
professional judgment or were so unfair that they have produced
an unjust result. See Strickland v. Washington, supra. Moreover,
the respondent has not offered to testify that the factual admis-
sions and concession of deportability were untrue or incorrect.
Since this is the case, we find that the admissions and the conces-
sion of deportability were reasonable tactical actions undertaken
by Velarde in order to enhance the respondent's chances of secur-
ing favorable action on the motion for change of venue and were
properly held to be binding upon the respondent. See, e.g., Strick-
land v. Washington, supra; Magallanes Damian v. INS, supra;
Matter of Z , 

, 562 63 (BIA 1951).
            -                         -



  The respondent has argued that he should have been allowed to
testify that counsel Velarde lacked authorization to concede deport-
ability. This argument misses the point. Since we have found that
the concession of deportability was a reasonable tactic designed to
enhance the chances that the motion for change of venue would be
granted, the issue is not whether the respondent authorized the
concession of deportability, but whether the respondent authorized
Velarde's attempt to secure a change of venue. Cf. Strickland v.
 Washington, supra; Rodriguez Gonzalez v. INS, supra; United
                                  -


States v. Guerra de 

  As a matter of law, a pleading that has been prepared or filed by
an attorney for a party is prima facie regarded as authorized by
the party and is entitled to be received into evidence as his admis-
sion. E. Cleary, McCormick's Handbook of the Law of Evidence
§ 265, at 635-36 (2d ed. 1972). It is open to a party to give evidence
that a particular pleading was filed upon incorrect information and
without his =tug knowledge. Id. However, the respondent did not
proffer this type of evidence. He did not offer, for instance, to testi-
fy that the motion recites untrue information or that counsel Ve-
larde requested. a change of venue without the respondent's knowl-
edge and against his wishes. Indeed, without more evidence than
                                  000
Interim Decision #3011

that which the respondent proffered, we would find an assertion of
the latter type to be incredible, for the record shows that the re-
spondent returned to his home in Houston after being released
from the custody of the Service in El Paso, that the motion for
change of venue was filed within a short time thereafter, and that
during the year between the granting of the change of venue and
the commencement of the hearing in Houston, neither the respond-
ent nor his present counsel ever questioned the change of venue. In.
any event, even if the respondent had proffered evidence to show
that the motion for change of venue was filed without his authori-
zation, such evidence would not have caused the motion to be inad-
missible. The fact that a pleading was filed by an attorney without
his client's knowledge goes only to the weight, and not to the ad-
missibility, of the pleading. id.
  Lastly, the admissibility of the motion for change of venue is not
affected by the proffer of testimony that Velarde was representing
the respondent only to the extent necessary to secure a reduction
in his bond. The respondent has not disputed that Velarde was the
respondent's attorney. The bottom portion of Velarde's Form G-28,
which the respondent claims he never signed, does not pertain to
him, for it relates only to citizens and lawful permanent resident
aliens. Thus, the respondent's failure to sign this portion of the
form in no way affects the scope of Velarde's representation at the
time. Furthermore, under the regulations, there is no "limited" ap-
pearance of counsel in immigration proceedings. See 

, 292.4, 292.5(a) (1986). Inasmuch as the record shows that
Velarde was counsel of record at the time the motion for change of
venue was filed, and inasmuch as the respondent's proffer of testi-
mony was to the effect that Velarde had a. scope of authority that
is not recognized under the regulations, the immigration judge rea-
sonably disregarded this proffer of evidence.
   For the foregoing reasons, the respondent's proffer was reason-
ably denied, and the motion for change of venue was properly ad-
mitted into evidence. Once in evidence, the factual admissions and
the concession contained in the motion amounted to clear, un-
equivocal, and convincing evidence of the respondent's deportabil-
ity and were sufficient to support an order of deportation. Accord-
ingly, the respondent's appeal shall be dismissed.
   ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.




                                384
                                            Interim Decision #3011

  FURTHER ORDER: Pursuant to the immigration judge's
order and in accordance with our decision in Matter of Chouliaris,

 (BIA 1977), the respondent is permitted to depart
from the United States voluntarily within 30 days from the date of
this order or any extension beyond that time as may be granted by
the district director; in the event of failure so to depart, the re-
spondent shall be deported as provided in the immigration judge's
order.




                                385