NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 6 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GLORIA MARTHA ORNELAS, AKA No. 13-74314
Gloria Ornelas, AKA Debra Vasquez,
Agency No. A076-969-165
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2017**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.
Gloria Martha Ornelas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision finding her removable and denying her motion to
*
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).
suppress evidence and terminate proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 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 Ornelas’ motion to suppress and
terminate, where she did not demonstrate that the statements in her Form I-213 or
Record of Sworn Statement were 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 by admitting the Form I-213 or Record of Sworn
Statement, where the documents submitted were probative and their admission was
fundamentally fair. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 823 (9th Cir.
2003).
The record does not support Ornelas’ contention that she was denied a full
and fair hearing regarding her motion to suppress. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d
967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (due process claims require showing that proceedings
were “so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably
presenting his case” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
2 13-74314
Finally, Ornelas’ contentions that the BIA failed to consider relevant
portions of the transcript, engaged in improper fact-finding, misapplied the law,
and did not sufficiently articulate its decision are not supported by the record. See
Perez-Palafox v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1138, 1145-46 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that
the BIA did not engage in improper fact-finding, where it “completely accepted”
the undisputed facts of the case); 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 13-74314