FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 05 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDRES CRUZ-HERNANDEZ, No. 11-71304
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-625-060
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 12, 2014**
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER, GOULD, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Andres Cruz-Hernandez petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") dismissal of his appeal from the immigration
judge’s entry of a final order of removal. For the reasons that follow, we deny the
petition in part and dismiss it in part.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility
determination. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014) (stating
the standard of review). The BIA correctly pointed out that Petitioner’s testimony
on important topics both was internally inconsistent and conflicted with his own
declaration. See generally Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1084–85 (9th Cir. 2011)
(discussing inconsistent testimony and adverse credibility determinations).
2. Reviewing de novo, Martinez-Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029, 1033
(9th Cir. 2011), we hold that the BIA properly denied Petitioner’s motion to
suppress the Form I-213. The admission of the Form was "fundamentally fair,"
Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995), and Petitioner’s constitutional
rights were not violated—egregiously or otherwise.
3. We lack jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s discretionary denial of
voluntary departure. Esquivel-Garcia v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir.
2010).
Petition DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.
2