NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 18 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELIAZAR ONOFRE-ROJAS, No. 16-71122 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-447-432 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted September 5, 2018 San Francisco, California Before: BERZON and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and DOMINGUEZ,** District Judge. Eliazar Onofre-Rojas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA dismissed Onofre’s appeal from the denial of her motion to suppress by an Immigration Judge (IJ). * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Daniel R. Dominguez, United States District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico, sitting by designation. Before the IJ, Onofre had sought to suppress evidence gathered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents during the execution of a search warrant at her workplace. We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo. See Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review. 1. Given that Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981), arose in the criminal context and that many of its justifications “simply do not hold true when the underlying warrant is an administrative warrant rather than a criminal search warrant,” Alexander v. City & County of San Francisco, 29 F.3d 1355, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, 137 S. Ct. 1539 (2017), we are skeptical of the BIA’s conclusion that Summers necessarily justified Onofre’s detention in this case. But we need not reach this issue because, as we conclude below, the BIA’s alternative rationale justifies denying suppression here. 2. “Where, as here, the BIA has reviewed the IJ’s decision and incorporated portions of it as its own, we treat the incorporated parts of the IJ’s decision as the BIA’s.” Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, the IJ determined that the agents had reasonable suspicion to detain Onofre based on the warrant, which noted that there was probable cause that 2 undocumented workers were located at the workplace, and on the fact that Onofre was found hiding in a plastic container after the agents arrived. Based on these facts, we agree that the agents had reasonable suspicion at that point to believe Onofre lacked lawful status and so could detain her for further investigation. See Orhorhaghe v. INS, 38 F.3d 488, 497 (9th Cir. 1994); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(1). 3. Onofre’s subsequent detention was not unreasonable in duration or in scope. Such a detention “may last only so long as is necessary to carry out its purpose and the investigative methods used should be the least intrusive means reasonably available to confirm or dispel the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals