JOSE ARMAS-BARRANZUELA V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-70803 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on March 31, 2014.
Download PDF
FILED JAN 08 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE ALBERTO ARMASBARRANZUELA, No. 10-70803 Agency No. A094-812-114 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted December 4, 2013 San Francisco, California Before: HAWKINS, GOULD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Jose Alberto Armas-Barranzuela ( Armas or Petitioner ) seeks review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) affirming the Immigration Judge s ( IJ ) denial of his motion to suppress evidence of alienage and to terminate proceedings, and entering an administratively final removal order. * We have This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition, reverse the Board s denial of the motion to suppress, and remand with instructions. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review the agency s legal analysis de novo.1 Lopez-Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008). Where, as here, the Board affirms the IJ, cites to Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), and supplements with its own reasoning, we review both the Board s and the IJ s decision. Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 1028 29 (9th Cir. 2011). DISCUSSION The exclusionary rule applies in immigration court only to evidence seized in connection with a Fourth Amendment violation that is an egregious one in which a government agent deliberately committed the violation or did so by conduct a reasonable officer should have known would violate the Constitution. LopezRodriguez, 536 F.3d at 1015 16. Before taking an individual into custody, an immigration officer must be able to articulate objective facts providing a reasonable suspicion that the subject of the seizure was an alien illegally in this country. Orhorhaghe v. I.N.S., 38 F.3d 488, 497 1 We refer to the Board and IJ collectively as the agency. 2 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Benitez-Mendez v. I.N.S., 760 F.2d 907, 909 (9th Cir. 1983) (internal brackets omitted)); see also 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(i) (2013) (requiring immigration officers to have a reason to believe that the person to be arrested . . . is an alien illegally in the United States. ). The specific, articulable facts must provide a rational basis for separating out the illegal aliens from American citizens and legal aliens. Orhorhaghe, 38 F.3d at 497 (quoting Nicacio v. I.N.S., 797 F.2d 700, 705 (9th Cir. 1985)). The agency reasoned that Orhorhaghe is distinguishable because Armas was lawfully arrested by the San Francisco Police. However, Petitioner does not complain his initial arrest violated the Fourth Amendment, but rather his federal arrest occurred only because federal officials egregiously violated the Fourth Amendment, and the fruit of that violation should be suppressed. On this record, we agree. Agent Lawton s justification for issuing the detainer against Armas falls short of Orhorhaghe s requirement that immigration officials, prior to making an arrest, make some effort to determine not only an individual s citizenship, but also whether the individual is lawfully present in the United States. 38 F.3d at 497. Even the agency s own regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(i), imposes this duty on immigration officials. At the time of Petitioner s arrest, these authorities would have put a reasonable officer on notice that Petitioner s seizure violated the Fourth Amendment, 3 and that is all that is required under our case law to trigger the exclusionary rule in immigration court. We therefore grant the petition for review and reverse the agency s denial of Armas s motion to suppress and terminate. We remand to the agency with instructions to grant the motion to suppress and to terminate removal proceedings. PETITION GRANTED. REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 4
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.
