NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 30 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARNULFO GONZALEZ-RANGEL, No. 16-74051
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-266-413
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 27, 2018**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Arnulfo Gonzalez-Rangel, 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 denying his motion to suppress evidence and
terminate removal proceedings, and ordering removal. We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress and
constitutional claims. Martinez-Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029, 1033 (9th Cir.
2011). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err or violate due process in denying Gonzalez-Rangel’s
motion to suppress evidence and terminate removal proceedings, where he did not
demonstrate that his statements to immigration officials 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); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must
show error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
The agency also did not err or violate due process by admitting into evidence
Gonzalez-Rangel’s statements to immigration officials, where the statements were
probative, their admission was fundamentally fair, and Gonzalez-Rangel failed to
establish that they were inaccurate or obtained by coercion. See Espinoza v. INS,
45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The burden of establishing a basis for exclusion
of evidence from a government record falls on the opponent of the evidence, who
must come forward with enough negative factors to persuade the court not to admit
it.” (internal citation omitted)); Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246.
2 16-74051
We reject Gonzalez-Rangel’s contention that he was entitled to cross-
examine the officials who prepared his statement. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B);
Espinoza, 45 F.3d at 311 (aliens in deportation proceedings may not assert a cross-
examination right to prevent the government from establishing uncontested facts).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-74051