of the admissibility of evidence is based on a purely legal ground, we review de novo. See Khan v. INS, 237 F.3d 1143, 1144 (9th Cir.2001). Rosas Robles argues that the certification of her conviction before the IJ failed to comply with 8 C.F.R. § 1008.41(b) or (c) (2003). As an initial matter, § 1003.41(c) applies only to documents “submitted by electronic means to the Service.” As there is no evidence that the certification here was submitted electronically, § 1003.41(c) is inapplicable. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(B), a “certified copy” of a k of authentication of that document. At the hearing, she objected “only because [the 1-213] does not have any relevant information on this case” (emphasis added). See Merrick v. Farmers Ins. Group, 892 F.2d 1434, 1440 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); United States v. McGregor, 529 F.2d 928, 929
holding that general objection did not preserve error on appeal holding that to preserve an alleged error in the admission of evidence a timely objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence specific grounds for the objection should be stated and a ruling on the objection must be made by the trial court holding that objection on grounds of relevance does not preserve an objection for lack of authentication holding that under rule 103a1 njeither a general objection to the evidence nor a specific objection on other grounds will preserve the issue on review holding that objection by defense counsel that he did not see the relevance of the evidence was not a proper relevancy objection