SERAFIN CRUZ-SANCHEZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-73300 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JAN 24 2017 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SERAFIN CRUZ-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, No. 14-73300 Agency No.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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
