francisco leiva-jimenez, a094 375 896 (bia may 14, 2015)

8/9/2019 Francisco Leiva-Jimenez, A094 375 896 (BIA May 14, 2015)

1/14

Weisz, Vera A. Esq.Weisz Immigration Law Group510 W. 6th St, Suite 200Los Angeles, CA 90014

U Dparmn of Justice

Executive Oce r Imigraon Review

Board of Immigration ApealsQce of he Clerk

5107 leesburg Pik, St 200Fa Chch. Vn 2030

OHS / ICE ffice of Chief Counsel - S606 S live Street, 8th Flooros Angeles, CA 90014

Name: EIVA JIMENEZ, FRACISC A 094375896

Date of this notice 5 /4/2015

Encosed s a copy of the Bod's decsion n ode in te above-eenced case.

Enclose

b:Ply, RgO'H Mg MWdd Ld S.

Sceey,

D CDona Car

Che Cek

k

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visitwww.irac.net/unpublished/index

Cite as: Francisco Leiva-Jimenez, A094 375 896 (BIA May 14, 2015)


2/14

t .

US Dearmen f Jsie ecutive Oce f Imiration Revew

Decson of e Board of ato Appea

Fall Chrch, Vrga 20530

File: 9 375 896 Los ngeles, C

re: FRCISCO LEIVJIMENEZ

REMOVL PROCEEDIGS

PPEL

ON ELF OF ESPONDENT: Vea eisz, Esqire

CRGE:

Date:

Notie: Se 22a)6))), I&N t [8 USC § 18a)6))i)] Present ithot being admitte or pole

PLICION: Teination

Y J 4· Z

The respondent appeals om he Immigration Jdges Jy 8, 3, eision nding himremoae as ge ad odering him deporte om the Uite States he reod ll beremae r rther proeedings onsstent ith this deision

e reie nings of t r lear eor 8 CFR § 13d)3)i) e reie qestonsof la, isretion, or gment, al other sses e noo 8 CFR § 3d)3)i); s so Rio Ho, 696 F3 97 9th Cir 22)

e respondent le a motion to sppress edene to teinate poeeings i theImmiaon Jge, gg at te Depent of Homen Seitys DS) eidene asobtne iolation of the For mendment to e US Constituion an eral eglationsTe respondents motion as spporte by is 6page eration "Delaton) eDepament of Homela Seity DS) le a brief opposing the responents motion,attaing to I23 s One 213 relates to the responent The oher relates to M RosToes, te person o as the taget of te Noemer , 27, sear ug ih theresponent as aested S DS Response rief to Motion, Tabs an

e Iiation Jge n that een if e respondent as redile, e di not estbish a

pima e ase r suppression of eiene isng om relate to hs Noemer 1, 7,aest, either on te asis of a onstittional o reglatory iolation The Immiation Jgeonle hat the rpoen a iz b migraio a tom Eoen Eagents ring the prean hose rid on Noemer , 27, t at the agent's searh anseizure of te responent as stie he Immigration Jge ther n hat een f teagent's ations ere not stie, they ere not egregios olations of the Fourth mendment(l at 58) he Immigaton Jge reied on te ontents of e Fo I3 to n tat theresponent is a Peria national o enteed te Unite States ithot ispetion e ne esp admissile as hrge s the respondent di not see relief om remoa theImmgration Jdge oere him emoe o the Unite States to Pe



3/14

,

Aq94 375. 896

On appeal, the respondent mes hree gments. Frst, he ges hat he provided credible testmny. Second, he mtains that he esblished a prima ce case r e supessin ofevence sed on egregios volations of the o Amendment b ICE agent who condcteda pre-da raid on s hme. rd, he asses at he establishe a ra ie case r thesppession of evidence ased on violatons f federa reglations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 2878(b), (c)

d ( y the ICE agents.

We ll reverse e Imiaon Jdge's cley eoneos ct ndngs remd terecor r her ct-nding e issce of a new decision here e a nmber f faaleors in is ce that e diectl relevt to the respondent's Fo Amedment clm. First,

e responent's teston d declaon e not inconsstent regding wheher he wssleepng or on e phone when ICE agents ive {Tr at 68-69, 7778; Declaon� 8) d whether e ICE agent sad that he s nder rest ee or er the respondent gave m s passpo (Tr at 74, 89-90, 92; Decaration 11) e respondent wa incnsistent as to whether the cer sed a screwdriver (Declation 4) r is (Tr. at 73, 949) to open hs stcase, bt is nconsistency alone is iscent to sppor an adverse credbilty detenaon where

the respondent's testimony d declaratin were oerse cnsstent. ere is n dispte at the ICE agent was ed, a sict ct in ths context {Tr at 7; Declaraton 10)

Second, e Immgraton Jdge nd at e respondent "aleges that e ICE agens entered e residence with eier a wt or conset (.. at . Bt this ding is not acuatereecn of e record. The responent dicated that ICE agents entered to M Rojs

Toes, but not that they had a w t {Tr. at 76; Declatin 8) Regng cosent, e mos te respndent indcated on cross-exmnaton was that his hosemates bled one of eresidents openng e door {T at 8384; Declaraton 68)

Thd, the Imon dge concldes that e agents ma cndct a "protecive sweep of

the house, bt he did not make ctal ndgs that wod sppo sch a concion. Maland v. Bui 49 U.S. 325, 327 (1990) olding t, n conjncn with in-home est,ocers ma condct a protective sweep of a residence. e recod dicates hat the ICE agent

went beyond a sweep to eliminate hidden dngers when he reqesed d seched therespondet's idetity docments.

Moreover, neer of e os 23 conicts he respndent's accnt of the events d the DH consel stated hat prst to agency poic e agents wold not be presented to testi (r at 31) DHS Response Bref to ton, Tabs B. Bed on theregong, we will rem e record to e Immation Jdge r ther ctnng d eissce of a ew decisi.

ORE: The recrd is remded to the Immgraton dge her poceedgsce e e pnn e e a ew ecso

Board Member Roger A auley respectfully dissents and would affirm theIigration Judge's concl sion tat, even assuming the respondent was credibe

he faied to establish an egregious violation of his rigts to justifysupession of his aienage.

·



4/14

Fe o

I the Maer of

Respodet

NTED STTES DEPTMENT OF STCEEXECUTIVE OFFCE FOR MMGTION REVEW

NTED STTES MGRTION CORTOS NGEES, AIFO

75

IVA JIMENEZFacisc

))))))

N OV PROEEDNGS

HRGE Setio 22)6))i) of te Immgration ad tionity t I) i pst i th Ui ts witot missio o o.

APTONS Motio to Sppress EvideneMotio to einte Proeedings

ON BEHF OF ESPONDNTVera Weisz, squire99 West Pio ld, Ste 58Los ngees, Cal 9935

ON BEHALF OF THE DEARTMENTSiri Ozen lberg Esquresssnt Chef ConselUS Depment of Homed Serity66 Soh Olve Sreet Eighth loor

os gees Cliia 94

DESON ND ORDERS O THE MMGTON JUDGE

Peual Hstor

Franiso eva Jimene Respondent) is ntie d tizen of Per On oember 14,27, the Uted Sates Depent of omed Serity Depmet) persoly servedRespondent ith otie to ppe T) Eh. . Therein, the Deartment leged thtRespondet entered the Uited Sttes at or er oges, rizon, on or abot M 3, 997ithot dmission or aroe I ordigy te Deent harged Respodent snadmissibe prst to setio 22)6})i) o the Proeedings ommene d

jisdition vested e the eptment ed Respodent's TA i the Immigratio Cot onovember 2 27 See 8 CFR § 34) Foong his release om stoy,Resoent w gte a hge o ee om e Forence mmigaton o o he Losngees mgraton o

On Otober , 28 Responent ppee bere is o d, rogh onsel,enied te alegtios te hge ontned in the T. On gst 27, 29 e


5/14

Depame e Repen 23 Rer fDepable/Inamiible ie 2 ) i upp f i alegai f aieage h 2

Repe me uppre eue he Fm 2 al umer

eiee an eimy peraig hi alieage iug he ae pae ime mer fla ery iy a y f brh au a ey legh f me i e Unie Sae; anaiaiy. Repen e a uh eiene a baied m him as a re f anlal eh eire arre an iegai ha re Nember 27Repe a ee eae e peeg bae ai f he regua erh a 8 CFR §§ 287) ad 2878)

O Je 21 he C he a herig he min uppre e hgefremaliy ug hih he C k eimy m Repen

I. Summa f Evence Submte

Evence Sumite n Behalf epnent

R ' Delra

O ember 27 a apprimaely 5 M hree agen m e Depme'mmigrai an Cm eme C) ii eere Repne reiee laea 57 I Nrri Ra aere Caia Nri Ra redee) The age eere ereee i rer e Mr. lbi Rjarre e f Repe huemaeRepne i gie he C age pemi eer he reee ee he eliee

ha a uene huemae pee e a r he age

Repe a leepig in hi berm he an C age rere Ree eh berm r er Repe pee h r he ICE agen eere Repne'berm rere Repe h hi h abe h hea an earhe he rm heIC age hen emae Repde immia e Whe Rede ine he age ha hi pap a ae i a e ase he age re he iae peih a rerier Repen reriee hi par m he uiae gae i he ICagen

The ICE age rere Repe e an i he ling rm ihRepne hemae. The age he ie he hemae geher h a r le

hem i a ehle hh laer rape hem he aerel ee iiy. he

eei ii age queie Ree ab h ame plae f bih aialy immiain a e a aie f hi righ r ge e ppi ul anaey ig hi ime


6/14

2

R spon nt's T stimon

Th ig s smmy sp's smy b h C J 23

Responden estied tha, o ovember 1, 27 a 5 , CE agens enered hsos oad resdence n orer o res M Rojasorres, one of Respondents osemaesResponden beiees at one of his hosemaes opene he door and allowed e agens to enerhe resence

Respondent as n hs bedroom, talkng on the phone, when he he noses an sawlghts oe of he hose ICE agen then ocke on Responens beroom oor, whchas loce om he nse, d iene himsef esonent opene e oor an the armeagen enere and seche Responens room, demanding a Responen presen hsimmigraon docmens When fher qesone b e agen espoden stae ha he no e lega ss in he nie Saes The CE agen hen red Respondens lockesicae open wih hs gn so ha Responen col reriee his eri paspo Resonenrst tesed ha he agen nrme hm tha he was uner rrest bere examinng e pssorHowever, Responden hen estied ha he agen sae ha Responen was under arres aer

he agen sa he passpo

Responden esied hat he CE agen sbseqenl emanded ha Responden ressan san wh his hosemaes n he lng room er wing n he ling room r ennes, e agens place handcs on Responen and hs hosemaes he agens then

pored Resonen and hs hosemates o a eenion cener i Bakerseld, here adionalCE agens qestone im Responen did not eleve at e as ee o rean omnswerg e agents qesons urng his time

B Depame's Evidee

The Deparen sbmie a Form 213 r esonen o prove the allegatons n heT Exh 2 e Form I213 indiaes Respondens czenshi, ate of bh, a dae ndplace of entr, appenl ered om inerview wih Responen on he dae of is es,oember 1, 27 I Te Form 213 aso indicaes tat e Baerseld Fgtive OperaionsTem resed Resondent a he Norris Roa adress, while loang rgee give MojToes

The Depaen also sbmte a Form 213 r M Rojs-Toes Exh 4 Thisdocumen cates ha M Rojas-Torres was arrese b he Bkersed Fgive Operaonseam a he orris oad adress, a he ws ordere remoed b n imgraon jg inSan Frciso, Calia, on Sepember 15 999

he Depment aso sbmied a Memornm n Sppor of a CsoReeenation Hearng r esponen, hich ws orignall le n he rzonamaton Cor Exh 3 ("Responden Leiva as bo in eru) Hoever, the Co

3


7/14

re h memrm gne by a repnen aey n ame evence See Sv hpah, 44 S 183, 187, n. (984) (ecnng rely n cne' nuppreaen n a e prve phycal preence); Maer

SM 22 &N Dec 49, 51 (BA 1980)

he Deprmen n pruce ny he arreng agen wnee.

III aw a nalysis

mmigrain prceeng pere wih rexe rle evience Epnza v S,45 F3 308, 0 (9h Cr 1995) Maer fa, 9 &N Dec. 182, 188 (B 1984)Hever, even uner he reaxe rle, n every pece evence ame Raher, eame cmenary evence m e prve an i e nenaly ir, a n epive n aen e prce aw ner he F Amenmen Maer V lqu z 25& Dec. 80, 83 (BA 2012); Cnapan v Hl r, 57 3 107, 1074 Cir 2009)(hlng h he e prce cae he Fh Amenmen apple remv prceeng prve len e r a r herng)

a clam ha evence w ane n van e prce, he repnen ear he ren ealhng pimfi ce legaly ere he en h heDepmen he mnner in whch ine evence Mer Brg 5 &Dec 278, 279 (BA 1975) Suppren may be wane r eher a cninal rregary vlan Seeng Sn v. ne Sat , 371 S 471, 488 (193) (hlng hpprein may e waane r cnin vlain) Mer Garcia-Flr , 7 &Dec. 325, 329 (BA 1980) (lng he ame r a regry vlan)

here py wihe challenge he admiil cen aegely aine invin hi e prce rgh, he erng n av ha ecrbe hw he cmen

r he nan herein wa ne n ane cen an he eneahng pimfci cae Maer Barc ns, 19 &N Dec 09, 11 (BA 1988). heav i ch a e ac lege, e, c pp a r excng he evience nqen, hen he claim m l e ppre y emy bere he uren hi heDepen j e way n whch he evence wa ane

A. eibii

The Cr n h Repnen' emny n eclran cnane mlplencnence h ca h creb n qen

The C n a Repnen ecn w ncnen h h ncr emny n everal maeal pin. r, Repnen ae n eclaran ha he weepng when CE gen enere h he. Exh. A Hwever, e hen eie n Cr hhe peing n he phne, aher hn eepng, hen he CE gen arrve. n in,Repnen eclrn nce ha he CE gen pene Repnen ce ce wh cerver in re reeve epnen ppr n cna, he ee ha e CE


8/14

aent broke the lok on his sitase ith e agent's gn. These sit inconsisteniesreet neative on Resonent's reiiit.

n aitio, Respoents testimon ontane a ke inteal inconsistenc. ame,Responet st testie that the ICE agent rme him that he as e arest ee the

IC aent examine Responents eruva assport. Hoever, esponent next testie hat the CE agent rst ooke at Responents passpo, an then nrme Responent that he wasuner arrest. Bease the maer in hih he CE agent arreste Resonent is cenal to hisaim, he Cor ns that his inconsstenc serios eines Responent's reiiit as atness

Based on hese varng a cots a d materia l inonsistences, e Cor nds hat

R espondent's estimony is not redbe. Further, Responden t's decation alone s not s ient

to ss tan his bur den of esta bishi p ri mafacie case of ilegaity. See Burg s, 15 I&N De. at

279. Acordingy he Cour nds hat R espondent has iled to mee t his bden of

demonstrating any iega ity in the a gents' actions on November 4, 2007.

Even if his testimon as creibe, however, the Cou etermines hat Resonen hasie to estaish a pim ci case r sppression on eiher a constitiona or regatorasis. See Wong Sn, 371 .S. at 488; Garia-Flores, 17 &N De. at 329.

B Sess Csia aysis

Responent claims that he inaton in he Form -23 as ilega otane hroha violation of hs Forh Amendment rights. The Fourth Amenment arantees "he rght of heeope to be sere in heir ersons, houses, papes an eets, against nreasonable searchesa sezures. .S COST. amen V. As a general le, e Foh Amenment exclsionar

re reqirng the sppresson of nal obtaie eviece oes not a in removaproeeings. See IS v. Lop z-M noza, 48 US. 1032, 1033 (1984) Orhorha v. S, 38F.3 488, 49293 (9th Cir. 1994). Hoever, the excsiona e oes ap n mmiatoncases invoving "eegios violations of the Forth enment. Orhorha , 38 F.3 at 492-93; see aso Gonzaez-Rivera v. IS 22 F.3 1441, 1449 (9h Cir. 1994). Ths, in somermsces, evience obtaine o sh eregos volations ma e spresse as thet of a nal searh or seizure See Wog Sn 371 .S at 488.

Resonent ears he bren of roof to estabish a pim ci ase of ileait ere the bren shis to the Deparment to justi the manner in hih it obtaine its eviene. SeeBurgos, 15 & De. at 279. Base on the evience bere it, the Co mst then nero a

three-se analss to eteine hethe a moton o spress, base pon an ilega search anseze, sho e rante. See Orhorhagh , 38 F.3 at 492-504. First, the Cor mstetermie hethe e encoter eteen the immiaion aet a te inivia nstittes asear aor an est or seizre I. at 492 If so, then the Cort must etermine hether ornot e sech or seizre as jste. at 49. The thir step in the Cor's anasis is to

5


9/14

eeine wheher he voaion of he nivia's Forh Amenmen rghs was scienyegregios o warran appicaion of he excsionary re . a 503.

Even assming ha h s esimony wa s consis en an credible, Responen a s fae o

esabish a hs seize w as jse an a any alege violaion of hs Fo Amenen

righs w as scien y egregios o wa rr an apica ion of e excsionary rue. SeeOrhorhagh 38 F3 a 49 503.

1. Search Seize

The es r weher a sezre of peson occue s f a reasonabe person wobeieve ha he was no ee o eave nie Saes v. M n na 44 S 544 553-541980). he inh Circi has aricae several cors o consier in his eermnaion a)whee he iniviua was ce wih he presence of severa ofcers; ) wheher heinvials physca access o exi was imie; ( c) weher he oce ispayed or oerwisererence his weaon ( ) wheer he enconer occe n a rivae nonpic seing; e)

wheher he ocers ace n aoriaive manner ( wheher he iniva was ned ofis rigs or we ha e ha he eedom o eave or ecie o swer he ofcer's qesionsan (g) wheher e ndivia was prove misinaion or e o beieve ha he was no ee o leave Orhoragh 38 F.3d a 4949

Here Responden ese assere n his aavi a an ICE agen enconerehim in is eroom whee e agen riey eaine an qesione hm regaring hsieniing inaion. Exh A. esponen her esie ha ring he corse of isqesionng he irmed e C agen ha he was no egay resen n he nie Saes eagen sseqenly orered esponen o ress an san w s hosemaes in he livngroom of he resience a which ime aiiona agens hcuf an rsored esponen o

a eenon cily Id. Base on ese alegaons e Cour nds ha Responen coreasonay eieve ha e was no ee o eave a he momen he C agen orere him osan in he living room an hance him; esponen was ce wih he presence of severaagens his aiiy o exi he resience was resrce an his eeom of movemen wasresaie wh hancs See M n nha 44 S a 55354 see aso Orhoragh 38 F.3 a494-9 Accordingy he Cos ns a a sezure of esponden occrred a s ime.

2 sicaion

The Cou ms nex deermne wheher he CE agens' searc an seize ofesponen was se ner e Fourh Amenmen.

1 Additionay, the Department argues tat the evidece t seeks to adit is ot suressible becase it s evidee of"ideity. See Lpez-Medo 46 US. at 1039. However evidece of alienage is searate om te ideti ofthe esponent See Maer Sandval, 17 l&N Dec 9, 9 (BI 979) (nting hat ientity, a distinguishedfromalienage, is not supressbe) Therere, the Depatet's reliance on LopezMendoza i suppot o adissin fte eidene identty eidence is ispaed

6


10/14

Seahes ha o in a home who a wa ae onsiee pesmpiveyneasoae Oohag 38 F3d a n4 o zRog z v Mas y 536 F3 02 016h i 2008) i ao v New Yok 445 US 53 180)) oeve s pespiomay e oveome i a opan o he esidee oses Uie Saes v Mato 45 US

64 169 (1974). emoe}"he voay ose o ay join opa o a esiee oseah he emises oiny opie is vai aains he oop.

ee Responden asses a he aens wee no jse in enein is esideneease Responde di no iviay onse o he ery he ofes d no possess aes w Respoen E A oweve Responde onedes ha he agenspossiy eee he esdene i a aan M Rojasoess aes AeaiveyResponde esied ha kno peson ay ave onsened o e age ey no e

esidee See Maok 415 US a 6 eause Responen aeges a he E aenseee he esiene w ehe a w an o onse he o s a he E ages did novioae he Fo Amendme when hey eneed he pemises

Te Speme o as hed a i ojio wi an ihome ares oes mayond a poeive seep o esidee

Maryand v i 44 S 325 33 0) nadion E oe may ey de a peso qesioin i he oe h aeasonae sspiion a he peson is i he Ue Saes eay 8 FR § 88b)2) seeaso Mae o Maeo Foes P z 012 45535 *1 Ap 5 202) pbsed)naon obae om is esoni may hen povie he basis he aes o e ae8 FR § 88b)3)

Hee Respoden aees a s es as no jsie ease he E aens os obai a aes aa i Howeve e o s a he E ages ee

sie onin a poeive sweep o Respoens esiene onio h heaes o M Rojasoes See i 44 US a 334 adio pon eoneinRespodet urin tis sweep, he ICE aes jusia bly deted hm f quesiog edinga lienae See 8 C.FR § 2878(b)() Te Cou ns at the ICE aents aced easonably hen hey asked Responen 's enig infaton becase R espoent cohatate hM. Rojas- oes, o ad been odee eove om the Uted Sates. See M arc lo Floes z 2012 WL 1495535 en Respondet the a mi ed at e wa s ieay pesent he Uite Staes and spayed is Peuv pa sspo in h e cose o e quesiog, he IEaets a ajustiable basis fr Respodet's aest. See 8 C.FR. § 2878(b)3) Accorn e Co ns hat te CE a e ts' seizure o R espoden t d not cons titute a Foh Aedme vioaio

E gios Vioaio

Eve f he aens wee o sie hei sea ad size a o Reso oNovembe 14 00 he o s ha e aes aons no onsie eeiosvioaios of he Fo emen A Foh Amee voaon is "egeos i"eviene s obained by deibeae oaios of e [Foh A]menme o by ond aeasoae oe sho have o] is in vioaon of e osiion

Lo z-Rodi z


11/14

536 F3d a 08 (quong Gonzlez-Rvera, 22 F.d a 1449). For exmple, in Orhorhag , he

Nin h Cir cui fu nd a h e w r aness en y in o the r esponden's pa r men wth out securing

his volua ry coset, ad ba sed solely o the f ct h a he h ad Nigeria sou ndig ame, was a

egregious Fourh Amedme vioaio. 38 F.d a 504 Simlarl, i Lop z-Rodrig z v.

M

ukas

y, h e Nn Circu i fnd a n egregiou s Fou Amendmen viol ton occu ed wh ere

immigio ocer s etered a v e residece wi h ou a w a rrt or cose . 536 F.3d 1012 (h Cir 2008)

ere, Respodet argues ht his aes ad deeto costituted a egregous volatioof the Fourth Amedmet becuse te ICE ages dd o oa waa r his aestHowever, ie i Orhorhag d Muas IE agets eered espodet's home with ethera arrest warr r Mr ojas-Torres or he cose of a uow residet of e ome Eh.A. addiio, Respode esied at he irmed he ICE age tht he ws ulwlly i

he ied Saes, ad showed he age his Peruvia asspo bere the CE agets hadcuedd aspored him o the detetio cili d. ased o these cs, the Cour s hatespode has ot me his bude o esablshig hat the gets deibertely volated e our

Amedmet, or should have ow at the were violaig i, coductig he arres SeeOrhorhagh , F.3d a 47; see also op z-ou z 6 .3d 018 Accordig eCou ds hat te agets' actios do ot cositute egregous volaio of the FourthAmedmet.

4 Cocusio

sum, e Four Amedme eclusioy le o the exet at t my apply iremova proceedigs, see Lo z-M doza, 468 .S. a 1001, is o mplcaed i ths maer,as he Cour ds ha espode dd o mee his burde o showig that the ICE agescommitted egregious violaios of e Fouh Amedme See Ohohagh , 8 F.3d at 9

Moreover, espodet does o asser at the irmaio he or 2 s ot his or hat is icoec See Lo zhav z v INS 29 17, 184 (9th Cir 2001) (saig hatgeerally o I-23 is admissble o prove aeage except whe a ae roduces probativeevidece coadicg ayhig materia o the 213 a would cast doub upo its reliability).Accordigly, he our will ot exclude he irmao cotaed i Respode's Form 213based o alleged Fourh Amedme violaios

. Suppess Regulaty alyss

Respode so coeds ht the Cou should suppress evidece i he record a erate proceedgs because the Depamet violaed 8 .F.R. §§ 27.3(c) ad 2878(c) durig

e November 14, 2007 arrest of Respode at the Norris Road address. See GarciaFlor s 7&N 2 (esablishig test r suppressig evece oaied i vioato of deraregutios resodes mus demosae 1 tha e violte regulo ws promued tosee a uose of bee o he aie ad (2) he vioato "prejudiced iteress of e aliehich ere proected b he reguio.) For he owig reasos he Cour ds hat heCE ages did no vioae he secied reguatios

8


12/14

Viotion o 8 C..R § 287.3(c)

/�I

espodet asses that proeedigs shoud e termiated eause the Deprentvioated 8 C.R. § 28.(c) when it ied to vise hm o his procedura rights. his reguaionreuires tht he Deprment inrm ies who hve ee "rested without wt pace

n rm roceedings o eir roedur righs. 8 C..R § 28(c). However, the NtCircui has hed at rmal remova proceedings re o itited unti the Demet es theNA wth the mmgration Cou hus, the Dearmet's oigatio to norm a respodet ohis procedura rights does ot aach t that ont. SmaoaMi z v. Ho r, 8 .d8, 002 (h Cir. 20 he Co s that Respodet was ropery advsed hs rghtsat the time the Depare serve hm wth a NA, whh onted wrien noticton o hisproedura rghts euse the Deparment seed Respodet with the NA ere g theNA with e Cou, te Cou nds ht the Derment did not vioate 8 C.R § 28.3(). d

2. Vioion o 8 CR. § 2878c2

Respondet nex gues tht he C agets vioated 8 C..R §§ 288(c)(2)(ii)nd (vi y rresing hm without waan nd creig oercive evrome hereguio states, i pene

( c) Couct o ests.(2 Geer Proceures.

(i) wrt o est sh e otaied except when theesigated ocer hs reso to eieve that the perso isiey to espe ere warrt ca e oted.

(vii) he use ets, coerio, or physical use y the

designaed mmigrtio ocer to iduce a susect to waivehis or her rghts or o me sttemet s proiite.

8 C.R. §§ 28.8()(2)(), (vii In unpuishe decision, the oard o mmigratin ppes(oard) reety und that an C aget hs presumpive reaso to eieve hat ae isiey to esce at the momen tht he aie dmis tat he s awy n e Uited States.Mter o Lir szoa, 202 204 ( 0, 202).

Respodet asses hat te agets who ested hm had a waat r a dieretindvdua, Mr. Rojsorres, nd hat no wrat was otae r Resondets rrest He sosses at he was no ikey to escpe ere wrrnt coud e obne However, pursuan o

he ods resong, the Cou ns tha the C gets had reasn to beieve ht Resonentwas ikey to escape a the moment that esondent dmited to his unaw staus. SeeLinar s-zoa, 202 L 204 herere, the Co nds tht Resondet hs e toemostrte tht he ws arreste in voon o 8 C.R. § 28()(i). See so 8 C.R.§ 28.8(b)(2) (satg that IC ocer "may briey et a erso r questonig theocer hs reasoabe susicio at he erso s i the Uited States egy).

9


13/14

Furhermore espondent has iled o demonstrate that C agents violated secion2878(c)(vii) y using hreats corcion or physica ause Such a vioatin wud requrehysica ause hours inerrogation denial of od or dr hreats or promises orintrerence th any attempt y the respondent to eercise is righs See Mater RmirezSanchez 17 &N Dec 503 506 (BA 1980) ere spndnt asserts in hs declation at the

agnts yeled and threatend him wever sponden did n indicae tha he C agentsused ecessive physica rce r itimidation d ie esponden may have eenudersanday r when the C agens enrd his edrom he regaion contempates animmigratin ocers more severe d intentional use of coercion Additionlly he Cour nds

that the handcung f esponden was reasonale under ese circumstancs S M na 54S a 98 (holding hat ecause a warrat isted o search the premises and he in was anoccupant o e premises a the ime f the search her deention in handcus r he draion ofhe search was reasnae) Accrdingly he Cour nds hat te agents actions did not violate8 CFR § 2878(c)(vii) in Respondens ce

For th reasons stated ave e Co nds tha he IC agens had reasn o eiev

tha Responden was aien ilgay in he nited Sates and hus hey were permied toarrest him See 8 CFR § 2878(c)(2)(i) Morover the Cou nds tat an arrest r anadminisative violation may made withu a warra such as in his mater. See 8 CF§ 2878(c)(2)(ii) (iv)

D Ccusi

n sum Respondent ied t estalish a prim facie cas r suppression o evidencearising om and reated to his aes on Novemr 4 2007 eithr on the asis of acnstiuional vilaion or a regulatory violation ecaus he Form 23 is not supprssile theCur may rey on it to determine spondents removailiy ed n the contents o the Frm213 specically that Respnden is a Peruvian natina who nered the nied Staes withotinspecin he Cour susans th charge o removaility A a hearing on Apri 5 2012Rspondens atoey indicated tat shoud he Co deny th min t supprss d

teinate espondent would not se any o relief om rmval

Accordingy th llowing orders wil e enered

0


14/14

' .

ORDERS

IT IS HEREBY ORDERD ht Responden's Min Suppress be DENED

T IS FURTER ORDED h espondens Min o Termine be DENI

IT IS FURTHER OERED th espnen be MOVD on the hrge ninedn he NTA o PERU

DT: ' - �- / 7

Immigration Judge

APPEL RIGTS h pies hve he rih to ppe he decision in his cse. Ay ppels due t he ord n or bere thy enr dys om he ird cendr dy e thseisin is mied t Respondent

11

francisco leiva-jimenez, a094 375 896 (bia may 14, 2015)

Documents