FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SERAFIN CRUZ-SANCHEZ, No. 14-73300
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-946-741
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Serafin Cruz-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision finding him removable and denying his motion to
suppress evidence and terminate proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1252. We review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress, and claims of
constitutional violations. Martinez-Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029, 1033 (9th
Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in denying Cruz-Sanchez’s motion to suppress the
Form I-213, where Cruz-Sanchez did not demonstrate that the I-213 was obtained
through an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment. See Lopez-Rodriguez v.
Mukasey, 536 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2008) (a Fourth Amendment violation is
egregious if evidence is obtained by a deliberate violation of the Fourth
Amendment, or by conduct a reasonable officer should have known is in violation
of the Constitution).
The agency did not err or violate Cruz-Sanchez’s due process rights by
admitting the I-213 into evidence, where the I-213 was probative, its admission
was fundamentally fair, and Cruz-Sanchez did not demonstrate that it was
inaccurate or obtained by coercion. See Sanchez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 1107, 1109
(9th Cir. 2012); Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[I]nformation
on an authenticated immigration form is presumed to be reliable in the absence of
evidence to the contrary presented by the alien.”); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due
process claim).
2 14-73300
We reject Cruz-Sanchez’s contention that he was entitled to confront the
preparer of the I-213 in court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B); Espinoza, 45 F.3d at
311 (the immigration judge was not required to permit cross-examination of the
I-213’s preparer).
Finally, we reject Cruz-Sanchez’s contention that the BIA failed to address
all issues raised on appeal. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.
2010) (agency need not “write an exegesis on every contention” (internal citation
omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-73300