Case ID: f-appx_126/html/0430-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Francisco CRUZ-URRUTIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-71886.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued & Submitted April 7, 2005.
    Decided April 21, 2005.
    Raul M. Montes, Esq., Montes & Montes, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Alison R. Drucker, Esq., Michelle E. Gordon, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, PREGERSON and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Francisco Cruz-Urrutia petitions for review of the BIA’s determination that he is removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Specifically, Cruz challenges the BIA’s ruling affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his motion to suppress the Form 1-213 containing information related to Cruz’s immigration status. We deny the petition for review.

The BIA properly determined that Cruz’s statements to the four INS agents regarding his social security number were not obtained by “an egregious violation of the Constitution.” See Orhorhaghe v. INS, 38 F.3d 488, 493 (9th Cir.1994).

Accordingly, the BIA correctly affirmed the immigration judge’s decision to admit the 1-213 in Cruz’s removal proceedings. See Cuevas-Ortega v. INS, 588 F.2d 1274, 1277 (9th Cir.1979) (concluding that suppression of an 1-213 was not warranted where the statements contained therein were not obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment).

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.