Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Christian Rodriguez, A088 190 226 (BIA June 18, 2013)

Christian Rodriguez, A088 190 226 (BIA June 18, 2013)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 27 |Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded the record to the immigration judge for further determination of whether evidence of the respondent's alienage obtained from his name and fingerprints was sufficiently independent so as not to be considered "fruit of the poisonous tree." The decision was written by Member Roger Pauley.
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded the record to the immigration judge for further determination of whether evidence of the respondent's alienage obtained from his name and fingerprints was sufficiently independent so as not to be considered "fruit of the poisonous tree." The decision was written by Member Roger Pauley.

More info:

Published by: Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center on Jun 26, 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

 
Lai, AeJerome N. Frak egal SecesOgazaoPO Box 209090New Haven, CT 06520Name:RORIGUEZ, CRSTAN
US
Department
of
Jusice
Executive Oce 
r
Imgation
Reiew
Board ofImmratin AppealsOc of h Ck
5107
Lesbg Pik, Sut
20
Fa/ Chuc Vrgn
41
HS/CE Oice of Chef Couse
HARP
0.
Box230217aod C 0623-02 A 088-90226Daeof this otce6/18203
Enlosed s a opy of he Boad' decs d orde n e bove-eened se.Elose 
Panel Mmbers:
Puy, Rg
Seey,
D
c
Doa CarChe Cek
wilame
Usetea
Dckt
Cite as: Christian Rodriguez, A088 190 226 (BIA June 18, 2013)
 
U.S Dpam
of
Jusc
Executive
Ofc r
Imaton ReewsChh, Vrg
 041
Fe:A088190 26 -Htford, CT Ine CHISIAN RODGUEZ
REMVAL PRCEEDNGSAPEALON BEHAF OF ESPODENAnne La Esqure ON BEHA OF DHSCARGEon P. MrleySeor Aoey
Deso of te Bo o Imato Appeal
Dae
JUN 18 203
Notice Sec.1a)6)(A)i)&N Act8 US.C.
§
l
18)6)A))] Pesen whout being admted o proeddged Sec.1a)7)AI) I& Ac 8USC.
§
8)7)A))I)Imgrant no vald mmnt vsa or eny docmentAPLICAIN TenatonThe respondent appeals he Immitonudge's May 7 0decison dnying te epondentsmoton tosuppress evidence and temnae proceedngs The Depen of HmelandSecuty hled a bref n opposton and he responden
leda reply thereo.We ll again ed the rcod to the mmition udge.hen his maer was prevously bere the Board we held tha the Fom I13 upon whchhe DHS rei oprove he respondents alienage ws nreable.e remded the reco ohe Immigraton Judge to mke diton dgso act out wha occeddung he repondens res ncuding whehe the responden provded denticaton nd at hat pontImgraion d CusomsEnfo
r
ent (CE) ocers e the respondent's deny  pontedout ha f the responden me his denty d subsequentvesigaoy thquese eal hs aenage he evdence woud not be subject to suppressionOn remd, he DHSwthrew the Fo Ind submited o peces of evdence n isplce a ap sheet stang thespondents birh pe as Ecuado nd he espondensEuadorn bh cecae
1
 he Imigaion udge dd not mke any adiional cu
e reject the respondens argument thathe DHSs submssonof new evdence o aege exceedede scope o e oads remde dd not qu or lt e scope o e remd.
See Matter of Pat
6&N Dec 600 60BIA 98);
 Matte of M-D-
 4 & Dec 18BA007)where emad s imte 
ngenl ssu o cmpleton of backod checks)nct the issue of he espondens lienage
which he new evidece pernss
a
e heConinued . . .
)
Cite as: Christian Rodriguez, A088 190 226 (BIA June 18, 2013)
 
A088 190226dngs with espect  to e cicstances of e espondent's est The Immiation dgedhed to his pevous holding t ICE agents dd not commt  eegios violtion of heFo Amendent, ad ths held sppesson was no wed.e aonJdge did not addess n isse at we view as potetilly dispositive,wchis whee the p sheet d bi cetcte wee idepedent soceevidnce sch  eycno be consided it of the povebal poisonos ee
O
 emad IC dotationoc Pea Wia esed bo he pocesses sed toobtain e ap sheet d biceicae (T t 32-33 442 4950, 5859) he mon dge, howeve dd not mkeany ndings abo how te DHSs new evidence was obtaed Ift w obtained sng spyidenty evdence, en e evidence s not sppessibe, egadess of e egat of e espondents deenionEven when ee is a eegios vioaion of he Fo Amendment identt evidencecnot be sppessed
ISv. LopezMena,
 468 US 1032 1039 1984) Fngeins can beconsideed identity evidence  ey e obtied  dencaion poses, ath 
 ciina invesgaoy poses
 Se United States
v.
Oscar-To
507 F3d 224 23324th C 2007) (hodng gents tken  se n eova poceedings, as opposed to
u
i a ciia nvestigation
a
 no sppessibe);
Unted Stat

GaraBelta
389 F3d 864(9th C 2004) hodig gein wil be sppessedony if  they wee ken  a cmiainvesgatoy ppose)
Unted Stat

GuevaaMatne
262F3d 51 6 8 C 2001)(ag sppession of gepis whee ee was "no evdence hat e gts weeobaed   te of cose ogh oe bookig pocedes, ae a  e pose of assising he S investgon of imitioneatedcis)
he DHSs new evidence w obtaied sing soey e espondens ne and ngeits ht wee not ake  ivestigto pposes, en the isse of sppession stops hee a evdence is not sppessble If the new evidence was obaed sg infoion oe ha the espondents denty then e Imigaon dge needs o ake the digs of 

 e Boad eqested i ou pio emd ode bot whethe d wh he espondent povidedinaton to ICE, and ca he dings abot e cicstces of te espondents res
(
s
Bods Novembe 5, 2010,ode t 34)Becse is ddtion

dg is eqed, we wil ed e ecod o the mmiationdgeOER:he ecodis emanded to e Immigtion Co  he poceedingsonsist w he egoinopinon and  e eny of  newdecisionconned  )of is case ad e end ode  Simlal e DS ha aot to odge a addionahage of emovbiton emnd 8 CFR§§100330, 1240 (e)
2
Cite as: Christian Rodriguez, A088 190 226 (BIA June 18, 2013)

You're Reading a Free Preview

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