Ruben Vega Cruz v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 14-14316 (11th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-14316 Date Filed: 11/19/2015 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-14316 ________________________ Agency No. A206-528-973 RUBEN VEGA CRUZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (November 19, 2015) Before HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and MARTINEZ, ∗ District Judge. PER CURIAM: ∗ Honorable Jose E. Martinez, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation. Case: 14-14316 Date Filed: 11/19/2015 Page: 2 of 2 Ruben Vega Cruz, a citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a final order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence by the Immigration Judge (IJ). On appeal, Vega Cruz argues that the BIA and IJ erred by denying his motion to suppress where he presented prima facie evidence that the traffic stop conducted by local law enforcement was the result of racial profiling. Further, he argues that the I-213 form, completed by federal immigration agents during his detention subsequent to the stop, lacked reliability because it bore no indication that the agents possessed adequate Spanish language skills to create the document.1 After considering the parties’ briefs, the record on appeal, and with the benefit of oral argument, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the BIA’s dismissal of Vega Cruz’s appeal and deny the petition for relief. PETITION DENIED 1 Vega Cruz arguably does not address the denial of his application for cancellation of removal on appeal. Accordingly, any claim in this regard is abandoned and we will not consider it. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). In any event, the claim lacks merit. 2
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.
