FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 07 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANUEL MARTINEZ-ARREOLA; No. 08-74559
MARICELA MARTINEZ-GARCIA,
Agency Nos. A098-212-237
Petitioners, A098-212-238
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Manuel Martinez-Arreola and Maricela Martinez-Garcia, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
agency’s findings of fact, and review de novo constitutional challenges to removal
orders. Lopez-Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008). We
deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in denying petitioners’ motion to suppress the Form
I-213 because petitioners did not demonstrate that the I-213 was obtained through
an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment. See Orhorhaghe v. INS, 38 F.3d
488, 493 (9th Cir. 1994). The officers who stopped petitioners’ vehicle relied on
“specific articulable facts together with rational inferences from these facts, that
reasonably warrant[ed] suspicion” that petitioners were aliens who may be illegally
in the country. Gonzalez-Rivera v. INS, 22 F.3d 1441, 1445 (9th Cir. 1994)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also United States v. Arvizu,
534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002) (reviewing courts must consider the “totality of the
circumstances” in determining whether an officer has a particularized and objective
basis for making a stop).
The agency did not violate petitioners’ due process rights by admitting the
Form I-213 because the form was probative and its admission was not
fundamentally unfair. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310-11 (9th Cir. 1995).
Petitioners had the opportunity to cross examine one of the arresting officers with
2 08-74559
first-hand knowledge of the facts reflected in the form, and they produced no
probative evidence that cast doubt on the document’s reliability.
Petitioners’ contentions that the IJ violated due process by making
insufficient factual findings and improper objection rulings fail because they did
not demonstrate prejudice. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.
2000) (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-74559