loan] is a mortgage back [sic] security . . . guaranteed by [Ginnie Mae] (Ginnie Mae II RPB Trust/Pool 2009)[,]” which resulted in Ginnie Mae having “rights of ownership [over] the said [m]ortgage [l]oan.” (Emphasis omitted.) This statement was properly excluded for two reasons. First, Ms. DeNiro claimed that she relied on “documents[]” and “county records[,]” and her use of “internet tools and commercial and government websites” in making her statements, but none of these sources were identified or attached to the affidavit, in violation of Rule 1-056(E). See Rule 1-056(E) (“Sworn or certified copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in an affidavit shall be attached thereto or served therewith.”); cf. State v. Lopez, 2009-NMCA-044, ¶¶ 14, 26, 146 N.M. 98, 206 P.3d 1003 (<HOLDING>). Second, Ms. DeNiro’s statements are vague and
holding that an asylum applicants submission of false documents without an adequate explanation supported adverse credibility findings holding that pursuant to the best evidence rule trial testimony relying on documents was inadmissible without submission of such documents or an explanation as to why the documents were unavailable holding that it was appropriate for the district court to refer to the documents attached to the motion to dismiss since the documents were referred to in the complaint holding that unauthenticated documents may be considered in support of a motion for summary judgment where the documents were not objected to or their authenticity disputed holding that where original documents were illegally seized those documents as well as all copies had to be returned