weight, as acknowledged by the BIA. Murphy disputed the significant information, such as place of birth, names of parents, and use of the aliases “Trevor” and “Robert Williams.” Murphy also provided information regarding the source of the information recorded on the form, an INS informant who apparently had some ulterior motive to make statements against Murphy. Furthermore, there were unexplained cross-outs and handwritten additions to the form. Most prejudicial to Murphy, there was no testifying witness subject to cross-examination to verify the source of the information, the time lapse between the gathering of the information and its recording, or the reasons for the uninitialed changes in the form. See Cruz Espinoza v. INS, No. 94-70094, slip op. 3857, 3866 (9th Cir. Apr. 7, 1995) (<HOLDING>). In spite of these numerous problems casting
holding rule 16a1a does not include statements made by coconspirators even if those statements can be attributed to the defendant for purposes of the rule against hearsay holding that outofcourt statements by witnesses that are testimonial in nature are barred under the confrontation clause unless witnesses are unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to crossexamine them recognizing that section 1252b3s purpose would be frustrated if the government did not provide a reasonable opportunity to crossexamine witnesses whose hearsay statements are used against the respondent when the respondent presents evidence controverting those statements holding that the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment is not violated by the admission of hearsay statements under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule where the defendant was able to confront and crossexamine the witness who claimed that the statements at issue were made holding that exclusion of hearsay statements violated due process even though statements were not admissible under mississippi law which did not recognize declarations against penal interest as a exception to the rule against hearsay