JOSE MANUEL LUEVANO BENITEZ, AKA Jose Manuel Benitez Luevano v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MANUEL LUEVANO BENITEZ,
AKA Jose Manuel Benitez Luevano,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73180
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.
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
* 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
AUG 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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.

-- 2 of 2 --