NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 15 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIO ALEXANDER IXCHOP-PEREZ, No. 19-71144 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-150-579 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted June 10, 2020 San Francisco, California Before: M. SMITH and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and EZRA,** District Judge. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officers arrested Mario Ixchop-Perez without a warrant outside a San Francisco hospital after unsuccessfully searching for him at his home. Ixchop moved to suppress evidence obtained from the arrest and to terminate removal proceedings, asserting both constitutional and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation. regulatory violations. An immigration judge (“IJ”) denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing; the IJ later denied Ixchop’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed Ixchop’s appeal. Ixchop petitioned for review.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).2 We grant the petition in part and deny it in part. 1. The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applies in removal proceedings only “(1) ‘when the agency violates a regulation promulgated for the benefit of petitioners and that violation prejudices the petitioner’s protected interests’ and (2) ‘when the agency egregiously violates a petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights.’” Perez Cruz v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1128, 1137 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Sanchez v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 643, 649 (9th Cir. 2019)). A violation is egregious if evidence is obtained by deliberate violations of the Fourth Amendment or by conduct a reasonable officer should know violates the Constitution. Lopez- Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2008). 2. The ICE officers did not egregiously violate the Fourth Amendment by 1 Ixchop also sought cancellation of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture before the agency, but does not challenge the denial of that relief in his petition for review. 2 Although Ixchop did not specifically appeal the IJ’s denial of reconsideration of the suppression motion to the BIA, the BIA addressed all suppression-related issues on appeal. We may therefore address that denial here. See Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 914 (9th Cir. 2018) (“It is well-established that we may review any issue addressed on the merits by the BIA . . . .”). 2 entering the curtilage of Ixchop’s home without a warrant with the intent to arrest him. At the time of the entry, no binding authority held that an officer’s subjective intent was relevant in evaluating the constitutionality of an entry into the curtilage. See United States v. Perea-Rey, 680 F.3d 1179, 1187 (9th Cir. 2012). The entry was reasonable under then-extant caselaw because it was “consistent with an attempt to initiate consensual contact with the occupants of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals