22 U.S.C. § 9005
Admissibility of documents
With respect to any application to the United States Central Authority, or any petition to a court under section 9003 of this title, which seeks relief under the Convention, or any other documents or information included with such application or petition or provided after such submission which relates to the application or petition, as the case may be, no authentication of such application, petition, document, or information shall be required in order for the application, petition, document, or information to be admissible in court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (18 in the last 5 years), 2017–2026 · leading case: Xochitl Velasco Padilla v. Joe Troxell
Xochitl Velasco Padilla v. Joe Troxell (2017)
“Respondent argued that the district court should admit the document as self-authenticating both because it was “lawfully executed by a notary public” un *174 der Federal Rule of Evidence 902(8) and because it “relate[d] to the application or petition” and was therefore…”
Amsalem v. Amsalem (2019)
“After Lorin’s counsel presented her case in chief, she moved to admit all exhibits attached to Lorin’s motion for preliminary injunction pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 9005 . (Exs. 1–8, Dkt. 2). Avishay objected to the automatic admissibility of these documents.”
Meng Jung Ho v. Elizabeth Catherine Ho (2021)
“The Standard for Evidentiary Rulings Under 22 U.S.C. §9005 , any documents submitted with a petition seeking relief under the Hague Convention or any documents “provided after” the petition’s submission which “relate[ ] to” the petition require no authentication in order to be…”
in the Interest of S.E. and E.E., Minor Children (2019)
“22 U.S.C.A. § 9005 . 16 regular contact with family and friends who lived nearby, and becoming familiar with the culture and geography of Guadalajara and Mexico through his weekend travels with his father).”
Mooring v. Padilla (2023)
“51 22 U.S.C. § 9005 . 52 Hague Convention, art.”
Krause v. Krause (2022)
“See 22 U.S.C. § 9005 23 (“With respect to . .”
Torres Vilchez v. Tovar Aranguren (2023)
“The Standard for Evidentiary Rulings Under 22 U.S.C. § 9005 , any documents submitted with a petition seeking relief under the Hague Convention or any documents “provided after” the petition’s submission which “relate[ ] to” the petition require no authentication to be…”
Etienne Jean Poix v. Espaillat Santana (2022)
“14; 22 U.S.C. § 9005 ; see also Hirst v. Tiberghien, 947 F.”
Etienne Jean Poix v. Espaillat Santana (2022)
“See 22 U.S.C. § 9005 (noting that the Hague Convention broadly allows for admissibility of documentary evidence without authentication); March v.”
Etienne Jean Poix v. Espaillat Santana (2022)
“14; 22 U.S.C. § 9005 ; see also Hirst v. Tiberghien, 947 F.”
Esparza De La Torre v. Login (2024)
“22 U.S.C. § 9005 . Petitioner Esparza requests that the court take judicial notice of Mendocino State Court DVRO case as moot.”
Rivera Gabriel v. Lavison (2022)
“See 22 U.S.C. § 9005 ; see also Brosselin v. Harless, 2011 22 WL 6130419 , at *1 (W.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.