GONZALEZ RANGEL v. WHITAKER (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Arnulfo Gonzalez-Rangel, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to suppress evidence and terminate removal proceedings, and ordering removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress and constitutional claims. 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 Gonzalez-Rangel’s motion to suppress evidence and terminate removal proceedings, where he did not demonstrate that his statements to immigration officials were 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) (an alien must show error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

The agency also did not err or violate due process by admitting into evidence Gonzalez-Rangel’s statements to immigration officials, where the statements were probative, their admission was fundamentally fair, and Gonzalez-Rangel failed to establish that they were inaccurate or obtained by coercion. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The burden of establishing a basis for exclusion of evidence from a government record falls on the opponent of the evidence, who must come forward with enough negative factors to persuade the court not to admit it.” (internal citation omitted)); Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246.

We reject Gonzalez-Rangel’s contention that he was entitled to cross-examine the officials who prepared his statement. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B); Espinoza, 45 F.3d at 311 (aliens in deportation proceedings may not assert a cross-examination right to prevent the government from establishing uncontested facts).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.