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
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Esteban Nolasco-Gaspar, A201 145 750 (BIA Nov. 29, 2013)

Esteban Nolasco-Gaspar, A201 145 750 (BIA Nov. 29, 2013)

Ratings:
(0)
|Views: 382|Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the denial of a motion to suppress filed by a respondent who was questioned and arrested by ICE officers at a courthouse where he was providing support to a friend with an outstanding removal order who was appearing on a local criminal charge. The Board found the arresting agents had a basis to question the respondent because he was accompanying an individual known to be removable. The decision was written by Member Hugh Mullane.
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the denial of a motion to suppress filed by a respondent who was questioned and arrested by ICE officers at a courthouse where he was providing support to a friend with an outstanding removal order who was appearing on a local criminal charge. The Board found the arresting agents had a basis to question the respondent because he was accompanying an individual known to be removable. The decision was written by Member Hugh Mullane.

More info:

Published by: Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC on Dec 12, 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

01/17/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Benson, Matthew , Esq. Bartle
&
Weige Co, LPA 432 Wanut Street, Suite 1100 Cincinnati, OH 45202
   
Executive Oce r Immigaion Review
Board of Imigraton Appeals 0c of he Cek
507 leg Pik St 000 Fas Churc, V- 50
HS/ICE Oice of hief Counse CE 1240 E 9th St, Room 85 Ceveland, OH 44199 Nae: NOASCOGASAR, ESTEBAN A 201145-750 Date of this notice 11/29/2013
cosed s a cpy of he Board's decison and ode in te aboe-eeced cae. lose
 :  Hgh 
Sceey,
D
c
t
Dona Car Cief ek
 k
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
Cite as: Esteban Nolasco-Gaspar, A201 145 750 (BIA Nov. 29, 2013)
 
 Dprm o Jc
Executive Oce r Iigration Revew Deciso of he Bod of mato Appels Fs Church, Viginia
2030
ile: A201 145 50Cleveland, OH In re: ESTEB NOLASCOGASPAR  REMOVA ROCEEDINGS  APP  PEAL  Date: ON BEHAF OF SPONDEN: Maew L. Benson, Esqire ON BEHAL OF HS CHARGE Micael A Trp  Assist Chief Consel
NOV 2
9 Z03
 Notce Sec.  212(a)(6)(A)(i), I&N Ac [8 U.SC.
§
  182(a)(6)(A)(i)] - resent wtot eing admited o paroled  ALICATION Motion o Sppess; teminae The respondent, a native and czen of Guaemala, appeals he Immgration udge's decson  of Agst 28, 201, odeing im emoved om the U nited Staes Te appeal wll be dismissed. We evew  clea ero e ndings of c, incldng e deeinaon o crediility,  made y e Immigation udge 8 C.R.
§
1003. (d)(3)(). e review de novo all oter issues, including weher e paes ave me ei rden of poo, and isses o discretion. 8 C..R
§
003 (d)(3)(i) Te esponden agues tat te Immigation udge eed in denying is motion to sppress. He asses tat agents om Iigration Cstoms d Enrcemen ("ICE) violated his oh and i Amendmen rghs when tey otained evdence of hs emovaiy He e  reqests tat, should te Board not set aside the Immgration Jdge's motion to suppess and  teinate emoval proceedings, we sould remand he record "to condc a ll scae evdentiy  earing on s moton o sppress (Resp B a
4
We rm e Immigaion udge's decision to deny te responden's moion to suppress.
1
The cts o ts case ae no in dispe On Mch 0, 011, the responden accompnie s end o a co proceedng in Saronvlle, Oio The respondents iend was in co to
1
The Immigraon dge issed a decison denyng te respondents moton to suppress on  June
5,
 2012 wot earng tesimony on the matter. Subseuenty, he Immigron Jue admited as evdence e respondent's Fo I-213 and sstaned he aleatons and carge of  remoabiiy (Es1 2) e Immigration Judges decison o August 8, 012 was based  pon the respondents "Spplemental Sumission to Motion to Sppress, that reiterated witot sgnicant cage is motion to spess (E. 4 J at 12).
Cite as: Esteban Nolasco-Gaspar, A201 145 750 (BIA Nov. 29, 2013)
 
01 145 750  esolve pending criminal chge nd he responenws only present r suppor Aer he  heing the responden's iend ws pproache by unimed ICE gents nd told he hd a  depotion order Aer speaking i his iend ICE agens pproched he esponden d asked  bout his identiy d immigraon staus The espondent eventually admited tht he did  not hve lega sttus n his coun The responden asses tha he und he ICE gens to be "aggressive d he di no el ee to leave during the encounter Ae dmiting his immiation ss the rsponden s hcue and en ino custody. He her claims at he ws tgeed by ICE ocls becuse of his Hspnic appearnce.
See
I. t 4 (une 5 0) Resp Br. a 3
I
INS v. Lopez-Mendoza,
 468 .S 1032 1039 (1984) the Supreme Cou held ha  he exclusion le of the Foh Amenmenis generally no consideed applicble in immiation proceedings
See also Matter of Sadoval
17 I& Dec. 70 (BIA 979);
 Matter of Garcia
17 & Dec 319 31 (BIA 980);
 Matter of Toro
17 I& Dec 340 343 (BA 1980) Even i  Foh endmens protecon gainst ureasonable searches d seizes is violated the resulting evidence ill be suppesse only hen he constitutionl  violtions e egregious e Supreme Co speciclly held tat "e do not del here wih  egregious violions o Foh Amendment or ohe libeies at might transgess notons o ndmenl iess nd undermin the probive vlue of e evidece obined A issue hee is the exclusion o credibl evidenc gthered in connection wi peacel ess by S ofces. We hold ht evidence derived om such   ests need not be suppressed in an IS civil epoion heaing
INS  opez-Medoza sura
  05051. The Sixth Circuit has held th e suppession o evidence "has lways been ou ls eso  no our s impulse.
United States v Abdi
 463 .3d 547 556 (6th Cir 006) noing ht the  plain languge of e IA permis igration agens o mke wless ests);
 see aso
secon 87(a) o the Ac. In is cse we agee with he Immigrtion udge hat he  espondent has no shown h egregious violtion of his Foh Amendment rights occurred ( t 3 (une 5 012)) As admied by the espondent he wa in  public bulding  ccompanying oter niviul ICE gens ew was not in ll sttus. Theere the  gens hd
 some
legitimae pose o ppoach he respondent nd sk him quesions
See United States v NavarroDi
 40 F.3d 581 58788 (6h Cir 005) (nding no egregious  violaion o he Fou Amendment where alien's encouner wih law encemen ws  precipiaed by his being pesent in a hoel oom in the middle of the dy ith ur other individuls one of whom w in violion o e lw)   Fuher ahough e esponen may  hve been inimidaed by he ICE agent nd chcterized heir ppoch as "ggressive he  does not sse th he gents ctions eve went beyond mee quesioning o h he indicated   esal o answe te quesions Exh 3 Motion to Suppress afdv).
See INS v. Degado
 466 .S  10 984) police questioning lone is ulikely o esult in Fo Amendment violation ess he person resed o swer and he police e dditionl steps to obin  swer). ecause the responent did not emonstrate t n erious violtion of his ouh  Amendmen rghs took place e will no disub the mmigron udge's decision o deny he
2
Thus bse upon he respondens own vesion of evens we o no gree it his agen  on appel ht oces "blattly dne nd quesioned [hm]  based solely on h ct h he  has  Hispic or tin appeceResp. B  10  2
Cite as: Esteban Nolasco-Gaspar, A201 145 750 (BIA Nov. 29, 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)//-->