Andres Cruz-Granillo v. Jefferson Sessions, 687 F. App'x 545

Petitioner Andres Cruz-Granillo, a Mexican national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; an immigration judge denied relief and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal.
Cruz-Granillo moved to suppress the Form I-213 and to terminate proceedings, alleging Fourth Amendment and related defects in how information was obtained.
He also argued due process violations from admission of the Form I-213 and sought to confront the form’s preparer.
The agency admitted the Form I-213 into evidence, found Cruz-Granillo’s testimony inconsistent with his asylum application and the I-213, and made an adverse credibility finding.
Based on the adverse credibility determination, the agency denied asylum and withholding; it also rejected the CAT claim because it relied on the same non-credible testimony.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the suppression and constitutional claims de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence, and denied the petition for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to suppress Form I-213 (Fourth Amendment)	The I-213 was obtained via an egregious Fourth Amendment violation and should be suppressed	The evidence was not obtained through an egregious or deliberate Fourth Amendment violation	Denied — petitioner failed to show an egregious Fourth Amendment violation
Admission of Form I-213 (Due Process)	Admission violated due process because it was unreliable or coerced	The I-213 was probative, fundamentally fair, and presumed reliable absent contrary evidence	Denied — admission was fundamentally fair and not shown to be inaccurate or coerced
Right to confront preparer of I-213	Entitled to confront and cross-examine the preparer to challenge reliability	No requirement to permit confrontation absent evidence of unreliability	Denied — no showing of unreliability, confrontation not required
Adverse credibility and denial of asylum/withholding/CAT	Testimony was credible and compels relief	Inconsistencies between testimony, asylum application, and I-213 support adverse credibility; no other evidence compels relief	Denied — substantial evidence supports adverse credibility; asylum, withholding, and CAT claims fail

Martinez-Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for motions to suppress and constitutional claims)
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (REAL ID Act adverse credibility standard; totality of circumstances)
Lopez-Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2008) (definition of "egregious" Fourth Amendment violation)
Sanchez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2012) (admission of evidence and due process analysis)
Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308 (9th Cir. 1995) (authenticated immigration forms presumed reliable absent contrary evidence)
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2000) (due process requires error and substantial prejudice)
Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2014) (asylum/withholding denial when testimony found not credible)
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts need not decide unnecessary issues)