Case ID: f-appx_622/html/0893-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIÁM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ruben Vega CRUZ, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
    No. 14-14316.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Nov. 19, 2015.
    Felipe Alexandre, Alexandre Law Firm, Orlando, FL, for Petitioner.
    Lance Lomond Jolley, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Krystal Samuels, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Nicole' Guzman, Dhs, Office of Chief Counsel, Orlando, FL, for Respondent.
    Before HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and MARTINEZ, District Judge.
    
      
       Honorable Jose E. Martinez, • United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIÁM:

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 1-213 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.

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. 
      
      . 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.