Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Department of Justice
Castro, Hugo Cesar, Esquire 11900 Parklawn Dr., Suite 320 Rockville, MD 20852
DHSnCE Office of Chief Counsel - BAL 31 Hopkins Plaza, Room 1600 Baltimore, MD 21201
A 200-123-950
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case. Sincerely,
DoYUtL caftAJ
Donna Carr Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members: Cole, Patricia A.
Cite as: Krissia Rosibel Paz-Avalos, A200 123 950 (BIA Dec. 6, 2012)
..
22041
Date:
DEC e 2012
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF DHS: Hugo Cesar Castro, Esquire
CHARGE: Notice: Sec. 212(a)(6)(A)(i), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. I 182(a)(6)(A)(i)] Present without being admitted or paroled
APPLICATION: Termination
The respondent, a native and citizen of El Salvador, has denied the factual allegations and charge in the Notice to Appear (Exh. 1). She seeks termination of these removal proceedings, arguing that the Form I-213 submitted by the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") to prove removability was obtained in violation of her constitutional rights (Exh. 3). See 8 C.F.R. 1240.S(a) (the DHS bears the burden of establishing removability by clear and convincing evidence). On December 16, 2010, the Immigration Judge denied the respondent's motion to suppress the Form I-213. Subsequently, on March 15, 2011, he found the respondent removable under section 2 I 2(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. I 182(a)(6)(A)(i), relying on the Fonn I-213. As the respondent declined to seek relief, the Immigration Judge ordered her removed to El Salvador. The appeal will be dismissed. The Board reviews an Immigration Judge's findings of fact for clear error. 8 C.F.R. 1003. I(d)(3)(i). On the other hand, we review de novo issues of law, discretion, or judgment. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l (d)(3)(ii). In denying the motion to terminate, the Immigration Judge stated that "a removal proceeding is a purely civil action to determine a person's eligibility to remain in the country. Consistent with the civil nature, various protections in criminal proceedings do not apply." Citing INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. I 032 (1984), the Immigration Judge concluded that "the exclusionary rule does not apply here." alien contesting the legality of evidence must establish a prima facie case of illegality before the OHS will be required to justify the manner in which it obtained the evidence.
An
Cite as: Krissia Rosibel Paz-Avalos, A200 123 950 (BIA Dec. 6, 2012)
A1atter o f Barcenas, 19 l&N Dec. 609, 611 (BIA 1988). To suppress evidence, the alien bears the
burden of proving that the relevant evidence contained erroneous information, or resulted from coercion or duress. Id It is well settled that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule does not apply in removal proceedings when the alleged violations are not so "egregious" as to "transgress notions of fundamental fairness." INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, supra, at I 050-51. The respondent claims that on October 28, 2005, Rio Grande, Texas police officers ordered her to enter their vehicle without presenting a warrant for her arrest and transferred her to DHS immigration authorities. On appeal, the respondent argues she was arrested in violation of 8 C.F.R. 287.8(c)(2)(i). However, section 287 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1357, defines the powers of immigration officers and DHS employees. Furthermore, the respondent has not asserted that the DHS engaged in any egregious conduct. She also does not claim that the statements in the Form I-213 regarding her alienage and manner of entry into the United States are inaccurate. Therefore, the respondent has not satisfied her burden of proving that the Form I-213 should be suppressed. See Matter ofBarcenas, supra, at 611;
Cite as: Krissia Rosibel Paz-Avalos, A200 123 950 (BIA Dec. 6, 2012)
EXECUT IVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT Baltimore, Maryland
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
File No. :
March
15,
2011
) ) )
IN REMOVAL
PROCEE D INGS
)
of the
Violation of Section 212 (a) (6) (A) (i) Immigration and Nationality Act.
APPLICATIONS:
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:
ON BEHALF OF
OHS:
Chief Counsel
ORAL
DECISION OF THE
IMMIGRATION
JUDGE
who was placed in removal proceedings when a Notice to Immigration Court. The respondent
at a Master Calendar,
The matter was set for hearing on April 25, The Court marks that notice as Exhibit 2. I-213. The
April 24th,
that as Exhibit
8,
2010,
filed a
motion to reopen. Court
5. The The
Court will mark that as Exhibit 6. to suppress and exclude evidence. Exhibit 16, 2010
respondent
filed a motion
7.
e r the Court, orders the having found that the respondent removed
-is
December
to El Salvador. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondent be removed from the
United States to El
Salvador.
Un
States
Immigration
Judge
A 200 123
950
March
15,
2011
CERTIF ICATE PAGE
'
hereby
certify
that
the
attached
proceeding
before
JUDGE DAVID W.
CROSLAND,
KRISSIA
A 200 123 950 Baltimore, is an accurate, the Executive original for Maryland
verbatim transcript of the recording as provided by Office for Immigration Review file of and the that this is Executive the
transcript
Office
Immigration
Review.
a e Reporting,
Whitlock,
Transcrib r Inc.
May 17,
(completion date)
2011
By
that a Sony BEC/T-147, 4-channel transcriber or equivalent and/or CD, as described in Section C, paragraph C. 3. 3.2 of the contract, was used to transcribe the Record of Proceeding shown in the above paragraph.
submission
of
this
CERTIFICATE
PAGE,
the
Contractor certifies