Opinion
No. 13-73180
08-13-2019
JOSE MANUEL LUEVANO BENITEZ, AKA Jose Manuel Benitez Luevano, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A075-118-868 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 9, 2019 San Francisco, California Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
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). --------
Jose Manuel Luevano Benitez ("Luevano"), 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 of removal and denial of his motion to suppress. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
The BIA did not err in concluding that the evidence of Luevano's alienage that Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") obtained during the raid of Sun Valley Floral Farms was not obtained in violation of Luevano's constitutional rights or any laws or regulations. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that Luevano was not seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when he was questioned during the raid. See I.N.S. v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 220 (1984). Through their consensual interactions with Luevano, ICE agents developed the "reasonable suspicion" necessary to seize him and further investigate his immigration status. See Orhorhaghe v. I.N.S., 38 F.3d 488, 497 (9th Cir. 1994). Thus, Luevano's Fourth Amendment claims fail. Moreover, although Luevano claims the BIA failed to address his Fifth Amendment claim, the BIA concluded that the conditions under which Luevano was seized and questioned were not sufficiently coercive that admitting the Form I-213 would violate his Fifth Amendment rights. Substantial evidence supports this conclusion. Cf. Choy v. Barber, 279 F.2d 642, 646-47 (9th Cir. 1960).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.