Carcamo, et al v. Holder, Jr., No. 11-3860 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePetitioners Martinez and Garcia sought review of the BIA's dismissal of their appeal of the IJ's order of removal after the IJ denied their motions to suppress evidence uncovered by a warrantless entry. In the order, the IJ conflated Martinez's testimony with that of his son. Both the IJ and the BIA found the officers' warrantless entry justified by exigent circumstances solely based on the son's yell to Garcia "not to open the door" because immigration officers were outside. Assuming petitioners' accounts of the ICE officers' conduct were true, any Fourth Amendment violations they suffered were not sufficiently egregious to entitle them to the remedy they seek - exclusion of decisive evidence in a civil removal proceeding. Although both the IJ and BIA clearly erred in their treatment of Martinez's and his son's testimonies, the error did not necessitate remand because the error was not prejudicial. The court lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant's burden-shifting argument pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1252 because they failed to raise this issue at the administrative level. Accordingly, the court denied the petition.
Court Description: Petition for Review - Immigration. Assuming petitioners' accounts of the ICE officers' conduct are true, any Fourth Amendment violations they suffered were not sufficiently egregious to entitle them to the remedy they seek - exclusion of decisive evidence in their civil removal proceeding; while both the IJ and the BIA erred in their treatment of petitioners' testimony, the errors did not require a remand because they were not prejudicial since they were relevant only to petitioners' Fourth Amendment claims and did not go to the factual finding upon which they were removed - namely, that they are aliens who entered the U.S. without proper admission; the court had no jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252 over petitioners' claim that the IJ deprived them of due process by failing to shift the burden of proof once they made a prima facie case of a Fourth Amendment violation as they had failed to raise the issue at the administrative level.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.