The principle of facial neutrality in evidentiary rules rests on an appealing premise: that equally applicable standards ensure fairness between opposing parties. However, this premise overlooks the enormous power disparities that can exist between parties. This dynamic is uniquely apparent in United States Immigration Courts, which have virtually no rules of evidence and consequently allow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to leverage its institutional advantages against asylum seekers. This chapter takes hearsay as a case study. It examines how the hearsay evidence rule, which prohibits parties from introducing out-of-court statements to prove the truth of what is asserted in those statements, may favor powerful parties when applied symmetrically. Through the specific example of DHS Form I-213, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, a DHS form that records border interviews, I suggest that the Immigration Court’s permissive approach to hearsay evidence, though it applies equally to asylum seekers and the DHS, enables the DHS to introduce unreliable documents produced through coercion while affording those documents presumptive credibility.