of the entries of all marriages registered by him during the three months next preceding.

31. Every clergyman of the Church of Scotland shall keep a register of marriages, and shall register therein, according to the tabular form set forth in the Third Schedule hereto annexed, every marriage which he solemnizes under this Act, and shall forward quarterly to the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages, through the Senior Chaplain of the Church of Scotland, returns, similar to those prescribed in section 29, of all such marriages.

32. Every marriage solemnized by any person who has received episcopal ordination, but who is not a clergyman of the Church of England, or of the Church of Rome, or by any Minister of religion licensed under this Act to solemnize marriages, shall, immediately after the solemnization thereof, be registered in duplicate by the person solemnizing the same; (that is to say) in a marriage register-book to be kept by him for that purpose, according to the form contained in the Fourth Schedule hereto annexed, and also in a certificate attached to the marriage register-book as a counterfoil.

34. The person solemnizing the marriage shall forthwith separate the certificate from the marriage register-book and send it, within one month from the time of the solemnization, to the Marriage Registrar of the district in which the marriage was solemnized, or, if there be more Marriage Registrars than one, to the Senior Marriage Registrar, who shall cause such certificate to be copied into a book to be kept by him for that purpose, and shall send all the certificates which he has received during the month, with such number and signature or initials added thereto as are hereinafter required, to the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

36. The Marriage Registrar shall also add such last-mentioned number of the entry of the copy in the book to the certificate, with his signature or initials, and shall, at the end of every month, send the same to the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

37. When any marriage between native Christians is solemnized by any such person, clergyman or Minister of religion as is referred to in clause (1), clause (2) or clause (3) of section 5, the person solemnizing the same shall, instead of proceeding in the manner provided by sections 28 to 36, both inclusive, register the marriage in a separate register-book, and shall keep it safely until it is filled, or, if he leave the district in which he solemnized the marriage before the said book is filled, shall make over the same to the person succeeding to his duties in the said district.

Whoever has the control of the book at the time when it is filled shall

send it to the Marriage Registrar of the district, or, if there be more Marriage Registrars than one, to the Senior Marriage Registrar, who shall send it to the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages, to be kept by him with the records of his office.

PART V.

Marriages solemnized by, or in the
presence of, a Marriage Registrar.

38. When a marriage is intended to be solemnized by, or in the presence of, a Marriage Registrar, one of the parties to such marriage shall give notice in writing, in the form contained in the First Schedule hereto annexed, or to the like effect, to any Marriage Registrar of the district within which the parties have dwelt, or, if the parties dwell in different districts, shall give the like notice to a Marriage Registrar of each district, and shall state therein the name and surname, and the profession or condition, of each of the parties intending marriage, the dwelling-place of each of them, the time during which each has dwelt therein, and the place at which the marriage is to be solemnized:

Provided that, if either party has dwelt in the place stated in the notice for more than one month, it may be stated therein that he or she has dwelt there one month and upwards.

55. The Marriage Registrar shall forthwith separate the certificate from the marriage register-book and send it, at the end of every month, to the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

The Marriage Registrar shall keep safely the said register-book until it is filled, and shall then send it to the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages, to be kept by him with the records of his office.

PART VI.

Marriage of native Christians.

62. Every person licensed under section 9 shall keep in English, or in the vernacular language in ordinary use in the district or State in which the marriage was solemnized, and in such form as the President of the Union may from time to time prescribe, a register-book of all marriages solemnized under this Part in his presence, and shall deposit in the office of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages, in such form and at such intervals as the President of the Union may prescribe, true and duly authenticated extracts from his register-book of all entries made therein since the last of those intervals.

MATTER OF MEJIA

In Deportation Proceedings

A-21327181

Decided by Board September 1, 1976

(1) In this case the immigration judge relied upon a Record of Deportable Alien (Form I-213), an official Service record which bore the signature of a Service officer. Respondent did not challenge the reliability of this official record nor submit evidence to show any impropriety in his arrest by customs officers or interrogation by a Service officer. Absent proof that the Form I-213 contains information that is incorrect or which was obtained by coercion or force, that document is inherently trustworthy and would be admissible even in Court as an exception to the hearsay rule as a public record and report under Rule 803(8) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

(2) Although evidence actually seized during an illegal arrest may be suppressed in a criminal proceeding, the mere fact of illegal arrest has no bearing on a subsequent deportation proceeding.

(3) The circumstances of respondent's arrest and detention by customs officers are not relevant to the admissibility of the Record of Deportable Alien because it is an official record of the Service which is admissible in deportation proceedings to show respondent's unlawful entry into the United States and constitutes the evidentiary basis for finding that the respondent is deportable.

CHARGE:

Order: Act of 1952-Section 241(a)(2) (8 U.S. C. 1251(a)(2)]—Entered without inspec

On April 22, 1976, we dismissed respondent's appeal from a decision of an immigration judge dated December 19, 1975, finding the respondent deportable and granting him voluntary departure. This case is now before us on a motion to reconsider our previous decision. Counsel has also requested us to grant a stay of execution of our order of April 22, 1976, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 3.8(a) pending consideration of the respondent's motion to reconsider. Counsel has advised us that the respondent has filed a Petition for Review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The motion to reconsider and the request for a stay of execution of our decision of April 22, 1976, will be denied.

The respondent is a 33-year-old single male alien, a native and citizen of El Salvador. An Order to Show Cause issued on October 22, 1975, alleged that the respondent entered the United States without inspection near San Ysidro, California on or about January 1, 1972. At his hearing, the respondent denied the factual allegations contained in the Order to Show Cause and did not concede deportability. On the advice of counsel, respondent refused to answer questions concerning the charge claiming the privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. He also did not make an oral or written statement on the issue of his deportability.

In this case the immigration judge relied upon a Record of Deportable Alien (Form I-213) (Ex. 2). That report contained information that the respondent was apprehended by a United States Customs Service patrol officer at Pier 50 in San Francisco, California, on October 22, 1975, during a patrol of the pier area. The respondent was turned over to officers of the Immigration and Naturalization Service on the same date. During an interview by Service investigators, the respondent stated that he last entered the United States on or about January 1, 1972, without inspection; and that he was smuggled into the United States for $150. The respondent stated to the Service investigators that he is living with a woman who is the mother of his United States citizen child; that he intends to marry this woman; and that he has three sisters who are United States citizens.

At the hearing, Gary Patterson, the United States Customs Service patrol officer who apprehended the respondent on October 22, 1975, testified that during a routine stop of a truck on Pier 50 in San Francisco, he inquired of the respondent (one of the occupants of the truck) if he was in the United States legally; and that the respondent replied to the officer that he was not in the United States legally. Charles L. Deatrick, a supervisory officer of the United States Customs Service, testified that the respondent was detained by officers of the United States Customs Service and subsequently turned over to two officers of the Immigration and Naturalization Service who were identified as "Guthrie" and "Smart."

Counsel argued at the hearing that the Record of Deportable Alien (Form I-213) was inadmissible as the product of an illegal seizure by officers of the United States Customs Service. The immigration judge properly rejected counsel's contention and overruled his objection to the admissibility of the Record of Deportable Alien. Counsel raises the same issue in his motion papers.

We note that courts have indicated that, although evidence actually seized during an illegal arrest may be suppressed in a criminal proceeding, the mere fact of illegal arrest has no bearing on a subsequent deportation proceeding. U.S. ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149

(1923); Avila-Gallegos v. INS, 525 F.2d 666 (2 Cir. 1975); MedinaSandoval v. INS, 524 F.2d 658 (9 Cir. 1975); Guzman-Flores v. INS, 496 F.2d 1245 (7 Cir. 1974). The contention that the physical presence of an alien is "evidence" that may be suppressed as the "fruit of the poisoned tree" if the alien was illegally arrested was flatly rejected by the court in Guzman-Flores v. INS, supra, and to our knowledge has no judicial support. See also Matter of Burgos and Burgos-Godoy, Interim Decision 2375 (BIA 1970).

Exhibit 2, a Record of Deportable Alien (Form I-213), is an official Service record showing that the respondent is a native and citizen of El Salvador who entered the United States unlawfully. That report bears the signature of R. C. Smart, a Service investigator. Counsel has submitted nothing to challenge the reliability of the official record. Further, counsel has offered no evidence of impropriety in the respondent's arrest and detention by officers of the United States Customs Service or his subsequent interrogation by an officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. In the absence of any proof that the Form I-213 contains information which is incorrect or which was obtained by coercion or force, we find that this form is inherently trustworthy and would be admissible even in court as an exception to the hearsay rule as a public record and report. Fed. Rules of Evid., Rule 803(8). See Matter of Davila, Interim Decision (BIA, August 23, 1976); Matter of Swissair "Flight SR 168," Interim Decision 2403 (BIA 1975).

Furthermore, we conclude that the circumstances of respondent's arrest and detention by United States Customs Service patrol officers are not relevant to the admissibility of the Record of Deportable Alien. The Record of Deportable Alien is an official record of the Service and constitutes the evidentiary basis for finding that the respondent is deportable. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that a Record of Deportable Alien (Form I-213) is admissible in deportation proceedings to show a respondent's unlawful entry into the United States. See Trias-Hernandez v. INS, 528 F.2d 367 (9 Cir. 1975).

In view of the foregoing, we find no basis for reconsidering the proceedings as requested. Furthermore, we conclude that the respondent's request for a stay of execution of our decision of April 22, 1976, is unnecessary. Accordingly, the following order will be entered.

ORDER: The motion to reconsider and the request for a stay of execution of our order of April 22, 1976, are denied.