ANDRES CRUZ-GRANILLO V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-72232 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 17 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANDRES CRUZ-GRANILLO, AKA Andres Granillo Cruz, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-72232 Agency No. A205-065-439 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Andres Cruz-Granillo, 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 asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction * 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). 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 review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. The agency did not err in denying Cruz-Granillo’s motion to suppress the Form I-213 and terminate proceedings, where Cruz-Granillo did not demonstrate that the information 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). The agency did not err or violate Cruz-Granillo’s due process rights by admitting the Form I-213 into evidence, where the Form I-213 was probative, its admission was fundamentally fair, and Cruz-Granillo did not show that it contained information that 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.”); 2 15-72232 Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). We reject Cruz-Granillo’s contention that he was entitled to confront the preparer of the Form I-213 in court. See 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). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Cruz-Granillo’s testimony and information contained in his asylum application and the Form I-213. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination supported under the totality of circumstances). Cruz-Granillo’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1245. In the absence of credible testimony, Cruz-Granillo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2014). Cruz-Granillo’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Mexico. See id. at 740-41. In light of this disposition, we do not reach Cruz-Granillo’s remaining contentions regarding his eligibility for relief. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 3 15-72232 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 4 15-72232
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.
