Fernandez-Perez

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner petitions for review the Board of Immigration Appeal’s affirmance of the immigration judge’s (“U”) order of removal and denial of her motion to suppress.

Because the facts are known to the parties, we do not review them here.

Petitioner argues that the IJ erred in denying Petitioner’s motion to suppress an authenticated 1-213. Petitioner argues that the admission of the 1-213 denied her the right to cross-examine the witnesses against her, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B). This argument is foreclosed by Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308 (9th Cir.1995). As in Espinoza , Petitioner has not presented any evidence contradicting the challenged evidence and has not alleged that the statements were not her own or were obtained through coercion.

Petitioner also moved to suppress the 1-213 based on an asserted egregious *739 Fourth Amendment violation. See Orhorhaghe v. INS, 38 F.3d 488, 493 (9th Cir. 1994). By her own account of the events, Petitioner admitted her identity, alienage, and lack of a driver’s license before the police searched her car. The police therefore had probable cause to arrest Petitioner before the alleged violation of her Fourth…