Arturo Guzman-Alcocer v. Jefferson Sessions

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 14 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARTURO GUZMAN-ALCOCER, AKA No. 16-71826 Ramiro Arturo Guzman-Alcocer, Agency No. A093-161-478 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 12, 2018**

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Arturo Guzman-Alcocer, 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 him removed. We have jurisdiction

* 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). under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims and questions of

law. Sanchez v. Sessions, 870 F.3d 901, 907 (9th Cir. 2017). We deny the petition

for review.

The agency did not err in denying Guzman-Alcocer’s motion to suppress

and terminate, where he failed to meet his burden of showing prima facie evidence

that the government violated his confidentiality rights. See id. at 908 (for the

exclusionary rule to apply in civil removal proceedings, a noncitizen must present

prima facie evidence that his rights were violated). Accordingly, Guzman-

Alcocer’s due process claim also fails. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d

825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must

demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”)

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 16-71826