NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 16 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SILVIA JACKELINNE PERDOMO No. 15-72412 EUCEDA, Agency No. A088-512-668 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 10, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: RAWLINSON, IKUTA, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Silvia Jackelinne Perdomo Euceda petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding the Immigration Judge’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence, and denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo whether Perdomo-Euceda established a prima facie case of an egregious constitutional violation, review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, Gonzalez- Rivera v. INS, 22 F.3d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1994), and deny the petition. Perdomo-Euceda is a native and citizen of Honduras.1 In her application for relief, Perdomo-Euceda claimed that she and her children were subjected to threats of gang violence in Honduras because she witnessed gang members abduct her cousin, who was later discovered dead. She claimed these threats continued for approximately three years before she fled to the United States. Perdomo-Euceda claimed that she fears harm from gangs if she returns to Honduras. The record reflects that Perdomo-Euceda’s children remain in Honduras with their grandmother, apparently unharmed. At hearings before the IJ, Perdomo-Euceda challenged the admissibility of Form I-213.2 She argued that Customs and Border Protection agents seized her without reasonable suspicion or probable cause and therefore any statements attributed to her in the I-213 should be suppressed. Perdomo-Euceda submitted an 1 The BIA’s decision erroneously states that Perdomo-Euceda is a native and citizen of El Salvador. 2 Form I-213 is a “Record of Deportable Alien.” See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 309 (9th Cir. 1995). 2 affidavit stating that she was “doing nothing wrong,” and she was “taken into custody.” At a hearing, she invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination and refused to answer any questions about the circumstances of her arrest. I. Generally, the exclusionary rule does not apply in immigration proceedings, see INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1050–51 (1984), however, it can apply “when the agency egregiously violates a petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights.” Sanchez v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 643, 649 (9th Cir. 2018), reh’g en banc denied, 919 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2019). “A constitutional violation is not egregious unless ‘evidence is obtained by deliberate violations of the [F]ourth [A]mendment.’” Martinez-Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029, 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (alterations in original) (quoting Gonzalez-Rivera, 22 F.3d at 1449). Under Matter of Barcenas, Perdomo-Euceda ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals