ARTURO GUZMAN-ALCOCER, AKA Ramiro Arturo Guzman-Alcocer v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTURO GUZMAN-ALCOCER, AKA
Ramiro Arturo Guzman-Alcocer,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-71826
Agency No. A093-161-478
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
JUN 14 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-71826
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 of 2 --