N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SER AFIN C R UZ-SANC HEZ, Pe t i tione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-73300 Age n c y No. A200-946-741 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 18, 2017 ** B e fore : TR OTT, TASHIM A, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. Se ra fin C ruz -San c he z , a

native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion finding him re m ova ble and de ny ing his motion to suppre ss e vide n c e and te rm inate proc e e dings. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . 

# FIL ED JAN 24 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).§ 1252. W e re vie wde novo thede nia l of a m otion to suppre ss, a

nd c la im s of c onstitutiona

l viola t ions. M artine z-Me d ina v . Holde r , 673 F.3d 1029, 1033 (9th C ir. 2011). W e de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. The a ge n c y

did not e rr in de ny ing C ruz -Sanc he z ’ s m otion to suppre ss the Form I-213, whe re C ruz -Sanc he z did not de m onstra te tha t the I-213 wa s obta ine d through a n e gre g ious viola

tion of theFourth Am e ndm e nt. S e e Lope z-Rodrigue

z v . Muk ase y , 536 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th C ir. 2008) (a Fourth Am e n dm e nt viola tion is e gre gious if e vide nc e is obta ine d by a de libe ra te viola

tion of theFourth Am e ndm e nt, or by

c onduc t a re a sona

ble offic e r should ha

ve known is in viola

tion of the C o nstitution). The a ge n c y

did not e rr or viola

te C ruz -Sanc he z ’ s due proc e ss rights by a dm itting the

I-213 into e v i de nc e , whe re the I-213 wa s proba tive , its a d

m ission wa s funda

m e nta lly fa ir, a nd C ruz -Sanc he z did not de m onstra te tha t it wa s ina c c urate or obta i ne d by c oe rc ion. Se e Sanc he

z v . Holde r , 704 F.3d 1107, 1109 (9th C ir. 2012); Espinoza v . IN S, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th C ir. 1995) (“ [I] nform ation on a n a uthe ntic ate d

im m igration form

is pre sum e d to be re lia

ble in the a

bse nc e of e vide nc e to the c ontra

ry pre s e nte d by

the a l ie n.” ); Lata v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (re quiring e rror and substa ntia l pre judic e to pre va il on a

due proc e s s c la im ). 1 4 - 7 3 3 0 0 2W e re je c t C ruz -Sanc he z ’ s c onte ntion tha t he wa s e ntitle d

to c onfront the pre p are r of the I-213 in c ourt. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (b)(4)(B ); Espinoza , 45 F.3d a t 311 (the im

m igrat ion judgewa s not re quire d to pe rm it c ross-e xam ination of the I-213’ s pre pa

re r). Fina lly , we re

je c t C ruz -Sanc he z ’ s c onte ntion tha t the B IA fa ile d to a ddre ss a ll issue s ra ise d on a

ppe a l. Se e N

ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th C i r. 2010) (a ge nc y

ne e d not “ write an e xe ge sis on e ve ry c onte ntion” (inte rna l c ita tion om i tte d)). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D .

1 4 - 7 3 3 0 0 3