Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Enrique Soto-Garcia, A087 534 842 (BIA May 7, 2013)

Enrique Soto-Garcia, A087 534 842 (BIA May 7, 2013)

Ratings:
(0)
|Views: 443|Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) found that Border Patrol agents committed an egregious Fourth Amendment violation when they pulled over the car in which the respondent was travelling because they could "smell undocumented aliens." The BIA further agreed that the government could not establish the respondent's alienage by relying on copies of the children's birth certificates submitted during a bond hearing; records from the Mexican National Population Registry submitted during the suppression hearing; or evidence from the USCIS Central Index System submitted after the suppression hearing. The BIA remanded the case, however, for clarification of whether the respondent's brother's testimony during the suppression hearing provided independent evidence of the respondent's alienage. The decision was written by Member Roger Pauley.
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) found that Border Patrol agents committed an egregious Fourth Amendment violation when they pulled over the car in which the respondent was travelling because they could "smell undocumented aliens." The BIA further agreed that the government could not establish the respondent's alienage by relying on copies of the children's birth certificates submitted during a bond hearing; records from the Mexican National Population Registry submitted during the suppression hearing; or evidence from the USCIS Central Index System submitted after the suppression hearing. The BIA remanded the case, however, for clarification of whether the respondent's brother's testimony during the suppression hearing provided independent evidence of the respondent's alienage. The decision was written by Member Roger Pauley.

More info:

Published by: Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC on May 16, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/12/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Shaw John D.Law Oices of Shaw
&
Gould1536
W
Thomas RdPhoenix,
85015Name: SOTO GARCIA ENRIQUE
 Dpartmn
f
Justc
Executive Oce r Immigraton Reiew
Board ofImgton ppeasOce ofthe Cek
507
esb1r  g 'ik. S1l
!000
F Cmrch Vr  g a
24
HS/ICE Office of Chief Counse -PHOPOBox 25158Phoenix
85002A 087-534-842Date of his noice 5/7/2013
nclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order n he above-referenced case.nclosre
 bs:uly Rg
Sncery,
D
u
c

Donna Carr Chief Cerk
-:
1
'
f
Us: Dkt
Cite as: Enrique Soto-Garcia, A087 534 842 (BIA May 7, 2013)
 
•
1,
U.
D
of
uc
Decisio ofe Board ofmmiaio AppealsExecutive Oce r Imigraion ReviewFas Chuch, Viga
22041
Fie:A087 534 842 Phoenix,
n re: ENRQUE SOTO-GARCA
REMOVAL PROCEEDNGSAPPEALDateON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:Jo D Saw, squireON BEHAF OF DS:CHARGEReed H AenAssisant Chief Conse
MAY -7 3
Notice Sec212(a)(6)(A)(i), &N Act [8 USC
§ l
82(a)(6)(A)(i)Present withot being admted or paroledAPPLCATON Termiationna deision dated June 2, 201, te mmiation Jdge grted he respondents motio tosppress evidence submied by te Deparent of Homeland Security (DHS") to establish terespondent's removabiliy and did not sstain te carge o removability isted above nstead,the miation Jdge teminated proceedings and te HS ha appealed The record ofproceedings will be remandedThe sse on appeal is whether evdence sbmited by te DHS, speically the Record ofDepoable/nadmissible Alien (Fom 23) (Ex 3), and the statements made by the respondet to the DHS when he wa detained, are inadmissible to estabis tat he is an aien and, erere,sbject to remova as carged Altoug e Spreme Court has hed hat the FouhAmendment exclusionay rue generaly does not apply in depotation proceedings, where temain issues are identity and aienage, it a e open he possiiiy that the exclsionay rulemigt apply n caes involving egregiosviolations of Fourt Amendment or other iberties that migt transgress notions of ndamental ess and ndeine te probative vaue of theevidence obtained
S I

LopzMnoza
46 US 1032, 10551 (984) (holding that theFoutAmendments exclusonary rle is generaly not considered applcabe in removalproeedis less the onstitutonal vioatos e egreios
 s aso rhorhagh


F3d 4, 49293 (9th Cir 1994 (oldn at even in adminstative proeedns, where theexcusionary e ordinariy does not apply, evidece must be excuded if obtaied in deliberatevioation othe Fourth Amendment or by codut wic a reaonabe ocer shod ow isunconstittiona)

removal proeedngs, an aien seekin toexcude evidence baed on a violation of theForth Amedment beas the bden of establishing a 
prima faci
cae that the evidence sholdbe sppressed
Mattr of Tang
3 & ec 691 (BA 197 ) Ony when
ae  comead
w
adeqate evidence in support ofsuppression wll the brden sh to te DHS to
Cite as: Enrique Soto-Garcia, A087 534 842 (BIA May 7, 2013)
 
I

A087 54842
 justi te manner in whic it obtained the evidence.
Mattr of Barnas 9
&N Dec.
609
(BA
988)
Te evidence submited to support e DHS's alegation tat te respondent is removable as alien not admited or paroed was primariy derived om a veicuar stop of a car in wic terespondent was driving with tree oter men, including his brother who was driving, and wichresuted in he respondent's arrest by US. Customs and Border Protection (CBP") agents inOctober of
 2009
(. at 
 4; s
Exh
)
Te respondent presented te tesimony of te tree oer occupants of te ca in wich e was driving wen stopped by border patro agents at teAizona-Caiia border (J. at 
 46;
Tr at 
 264)
Al tee of te passengers, wo areHispanic,testied to essentially the same set of cts e respondent's car was waved througte cecpoint but ten puled over a w minutes later by CBP agents wo indicated they werepuling te car over because tey coud smel undocumented aliens; te respondent was aesteder being seached and the ee other occupants of te car resumed teir trip to Caiia (..at 
 46;
Tr. at 
 2429 2 64 4652)
Te three witnesses also testied tat ey were not in a renta car or a Hyundai Sonata wen ey were stopped, and tat tey did not now SergioGarcia" or Jess Ocoa-Toes," cts wic were listed on te Forms 23 and tecontinuationseet (Form
8)
(I.. at 
 46;
Tr at 
 29 404 47 52560; s
Ex.
)
Based on these witnesses' tesimony, te Immigration udge determined at the respondent had estabised a 
prma fa
case r suppressing the evidence arising out of an illega stop (..at 
7)
As noted by te Immigration Judge, stopping a veice is justied when e ocer isaweof articuae cts that reasonably waant sspicion tat a veicle contains alienswho may be ilegally in the United Sates ( at 
6
(citing and uoting
Unt tats v. BrgnonPon 422
U.S
87 884 (975))); s also onzalzRvra v I 22
F.3d
44 445 (9
Cir
994)
Stopping a car soey because te inabitants are Hispanic is not a sucient reason tosuspect a person of being an ilega alien ( at 
7)  Unt tats v BrgnonPonsupra
at 
88687; onzalzRvra v I supra
at 
44748
We nd no cear error in te ImmigrationJudges deteination tat the respondent's winesses testied crediby and tat, based on teir testimony indicating that te car was stopped soley because CBP ocers smeed"undocuented aiens, te respondent as establised a 
prma fa
case of ilegality Therere,te burden of proof sis to e HS to justi te manner in wich it obtained te Forms
2
and
8  Matr of Barnas supra
Te Immigration udge und that te HS was unable to justi te manner in whic it obtained the Fo
2
and the continuation sheet, Fo -3, because te inationcontainedterein, including that te CBP agents stopped a rented Hyundai Sonaa driven bySergio Garcia wit an occupant named Jesus Ocoa-Toes, was incorect te ImmigrationJudge und tis evidence uneiabe in te ce of te respondent's witness credibe testimony,and, erere, inadmissibe (J at 
78)  d
at 
6
The HS did not oer any other evidencebesides the Foms
2
and I (J at ) he Imigration Judge reected theDHS'sargument that it was denied an opportunity to uestion te respondent at the suppressionhearing (.. at 
8)
Wie te respondent did not testi, te DHS was ee to ca the respondent as its own witness and did not do so (I. at 
8; s
Tr. at 
920)
As teDHS did not present evidenceto justi stoping and aesting te respondent, te mmigration Judge und te stopiegad suppressed a evidence obtained om the stop (ie, the Fos
2
and
8)
(.at )
2
Cite as: Enrique Soto-Garcia, A087 534 842 (BIA May 7, 2013)

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->