NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL MATIAS MONTES, No. 17-70121
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-676-973
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Matias Montes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to 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.
*
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).
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 Matias Montes’s
motion to suppress and terminate removal proceedings, where he did not
demonstrate that the evidence of alienage in the Form 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); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring
error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
The agency also did not err or violate due process by admitting the Form I-
213 into evidence, where it was probative, its admission was fundamentally fair,
and Matias Montes did not show that it contained inaccurate information or was
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, 204 F.3d at 1246.
We reject Matias Montes’s contention that the BIA violated due process by
not addressing cross-examination of the preparer of the Form I-213, because he has
2 17-70121
failed to show prejudice. See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246; see also Espinoza, 45 F.3d at
311 (the immigration judge was not required to permit cross-examination
of the Form I-213’s preparer absent evidence of unreliability). We also reject
Matias Montes’s additional contentions that the BIA failed to address all issues
raised on appeal or provide a reasoned explanation for its decision. See Najmabadi
v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding the BIA adequately
considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 17-70121