Marco Velasco-Romero v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 2 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCO ANTONIO VELASCO- No. 15-73300
ROMERO,
Agency No. A095-797-320
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Marco Antonio Velasco-Romero, 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 (“IJ”) order denying his motion to suppress
evidence and terminate proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
*
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).
We review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress, and claims of constitutional
violations. Martinez-Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029, 1033 (9th Cir. 2011). We
deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in denying Velasco-Romero’s motion to suppress the
Form I-213 and Form I-826, both dated August 19, 2009, where they were
independently obtained subsequent to Velasco-Romero’s allegedly unlawful June
24, 2013, arrest. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1039 (1984) (“The
‘body’ or identity of a defendant or respondent in a criminal or civil proceeding is
never itself suppressible as a fruit of an unlawful arrest, even if it is conceded that
an unlawful arrest, search, or interrogation occurred.” (citations omitted));
Hoonsilapa v. INS, 575 F.2d 735, 738 (9th Cir. 1978), modified by 586 F.2d 755(9th Cir. 1978) (“It is well settled in this circuit that the mere fact that Fourth
Amendment illegality directs attention to a particular suspect does not require
exclusion of evidence subsequently unearthed from independent sources.”).
It follows that the agency did not err or violate Velasco-Romero’s due
process rights by admitting the 2009 Form I-213 and Form I-826 into evidence,
where they were probative, their admission was fundamentally fair, and Velasco-
Romero did not show that they contained inaccurate information or were 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
2 15-73300
immigration form is presumed to be reliable in the absence of evidence to the
contrary presented by the alien.”); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
Velasco-Romero’s contentions that the BIA failed to address all issues
raised on appeal or provide a reasoned explanation for its decision are not
supported by the record, where the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision for the reasons
cited therein, and the IJ’s decision had already adequately addressed the
contentions raised in Velasco-Romero’s appeal. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not “write an exegesis on every
contention” (internal citation omitted)).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Velasco-Romero’s contentions
regarding the Form I-213, dated June 25, 2013. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d
532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues
unnecessary to the results they reach).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-73300