ANDRES CRUZ-HERNANDEZ V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-71304 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 05 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANDRES CRUZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, No. 11-71304 Agency No. A099-625-060 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 12, 2014** Pasadena, California Before: GRABER, GOULD, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Andres Cruz-Hernandez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") dismissal of his appeal from the immigration judge’s entry of a final order of removal. For the reasons that follow, we deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014) (stating the standard of review). The BIA correctly pointed out that Petitioner’s testimony on important topics both was internally inconsistent and conflicted with his own declaration. See generally Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1084–85 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing inconsistent testimony and adverse credibility determinations). 2. Reviewing de novo, Martinez-Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029, 1033 (9th Cir. 2011), we hold that the BIA properly denied Petitioner’s motion to suppress the Form I-213. The admission of the Form was "fundamentally fair," Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995), and Petitioner’s constitutional rights were not violated—egregiously or otherwise. 3. We lack jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s discretionary denial of voluntary departure. Esquivel-Garcia v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 2010). Petition DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. 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.