NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL MATIAS MONTES, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-70121 

Agency No. A206-676-973 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 19, 2019

**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Matias Montes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to suppress evidence and 

terminate proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de 

novo the denial of a motion to suppress, and claims of constitutional violations. 

 

* 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).

FILED

FEB 22 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-70121 

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 Matias Montes’s

motion to suppress and terminate removal proceedings, where he did not 

demonstrate that the evidence of alienage in the Form I-213 was 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) (requiring 

error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

The agency also did not err or violate due process by admitting the Form I213 into evidence, where it was probative, its admission was fundamentally fair, 

and Matias Montes did not show that it contained inaccurate information or was 

obtained by coercion. See Sanchez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 1107, 1109 (9th Cir. 2012); 

Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[I]nformation on an 

authenticated immigration form is presumed to be reliable in the absence of 

evidence to the contrary presented by the alien.”); Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246.

We reject Matias Montes’s contention that the BIA violated due process by 

not addressing cross-examination of the preparer of the Form I-213, because he has 
3 17-70121 

failed to show prejudice. See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246; see also Espinoza, 45 F.3d at 

311 (the immigration judge was not required to permit cross-examination 

of the Form I-213’s preparer absent evidence of unreliability). We also reject

Matias Montes’s additional contentions that the BIA failed to address all issues 

raised on appeal or provide a reasoned explanation for its decision. See Najmabadi 

v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding the BIA adequately 

considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.