ARNULFO GONZALEZ-RANGEL V. MATTHEW WHITAKER, No. 16-74051 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 30 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARNULFO GONZALEZ-RANGEL, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-74051 Agency No. A206-266-413 v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 27, 2018** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Arnulfo Gonzalez-Rangel, 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 his motion to suppress evidence and terminate removal proceedings, and ordering removal. We have jurisdiction under * 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). 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress and constitutional claims. 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 Gonzalez-Rangel’s motion to suppress evidence and terminate removal proceedings, where he did not demonstrate that his statements to immigration officials were 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) (an alien must show error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). The agency also did not err or violate due process by admitting into evidence Gonzalez-Rangel’s statements to immigration officials, where the statements were probative, their admission was fundamentally fair, and Gonzalez-Rangel failed to establish that they were inaccurate or obtained by coercion. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The burden of establishing a basis for exclusion of evidence from a government record falls on the opponent of the evidence, who must come forward with enough negative factors to persuade the court not to admit it.” (internal citation omitted)); Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246. 2 16-74051 We reject Gonzalez-Rangel’s contention that he was entitled to crossexamine the officials who prepared his statement. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B); Espinoza, 45 F.3d at 311 (aliens in deportation proceedings may not assert a crossexamination right to prevent the government from establishing uncontested facts). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 16-74051
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.
