NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 26 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANA DE JESUS ECHEVERRIA-PEREZ, No. 17-70155 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-136-769 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 4, 2019** San Francisco, California Before: SILER,*** BYBEE, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Ana de Jesus Echeverria-Perez (“Echeverria”) petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to * 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). *** The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review because Echeverria has not demonstrated that a constitutional violation occurred. Echeverria contends that Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) agents committed an egregious Fourth Amendment violation when they arrested her without first establishing her identity or alienage. She also argues that her Fifth Amendment rights were violated during initial removal and asylum processing proceedings. Lastly, she claims that the government failed to meet its burden to prove alienage because certain forms were improperly admitted in removal proceedings. “Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision while adding some of its own reasoning, we review both decisions.” Lopez-Cardona v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1110, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). We review constitutional claims and questions of law de novo and review factual findings under the deferential substantial evidence standard of review. Id. Initially, Echeverria has failed to demonstrate that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated. See Lopez-Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that we must determine whether agents violated a petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights before considering whether the violation was egregious). The fact that agents detained and arrested Echeverria without first establishing her 2 17-70155 identity and alienage is of no moment. All the agents needed to make an arrest was “reason to believe” that Echeverria was an alien illegally in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(i); see 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). Moreover, Echeverria has failed to provide any proof to challenge the CBP agents’ determination that she entered the United States illegally. No doubt, the description of the initial encounter between CBP agents and Echeverria contained on Form I-213 is brief. While “officers cannot be expected to compile elaborate, contemporaneous, written reports detailing the circumstances of every arrest,” I.N.S. v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1049 (1984), they must provide something more than nothing when describing encounters that lead to arrests of suspected aliens. Still, Echeverria does not challenge the agents’ determination—reflected on Form I- 213—that she “had unlawfully entered the United States from Mexico.” And Echeverria’s remaining arguments focus on ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals