NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 , 201 9 **
Before: FERNANDEZ , SILVERMAN , and WATFORD , Circuit Judges. Daniel Matias Montes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Im migration 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, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 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 Fou rth 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) (req uiring 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 I

213 into evidence, where it was probative, its admission was fundamentally fair,
and Matias Montes did no t 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 b e reliable in the absence of
evidence to the con trary 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 has3 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
Mati as Montes’ s additional contention s 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.