
    Manuel ESPINOZA-ARAIZA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-76181.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 22, 2008.
    
    Filed Aug. 5, 2008.
    Michael J. Selph, Robert G. Berke, Esq., Berke Law Offices, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Peter D. Keisler, Esq., Allen W. Hausman, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Manuel Espinoza-Araiza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Lopez-Chavez v. INS, 259 F.3d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir.2001), we deny the petition for review.

Contrary to Espinoza-Araiza’s contention, the IJ properly admitted the Form I-213 (Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien) that indicated he entered the United States without inspection in December 2000. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310-11 (9th Cir.1995) (an 1-213 is admissible and there is no right to cross-examine its preparer where the alien fails to produce probative evidence casting doubt on its reliability). Substantial evidence therefore supports the agency’s removability determination. See id, at 311; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).

Espinoza-Araiza’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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