NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 18 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LIDIA ISABEL GAMEZ-LOPEZ; JENNY No. 16-71119 MIROSLAVA ESTEVES SILVA, Agency Nos. A088-447-438 Petitioners, A088-447-439 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 14, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: BADE and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and MÁRQUEZ,*** District Judge. Lidia Isabel Gamez-Lopez and Jenny Miroslava Esteves Silva (collectively, “Petitioners”), who are natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a * 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 Rosemary Márquez, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. The IJ’s finding of removability was based on an interim decision denying Petitioners’ motion to suppress evidence of alienage obtained by federal law enforcement agents during the execution of a criminal search warrant at Petitioners’ apartment. 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 have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. 1. “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). We agree with the BIA that suppression was not required under the Fourth Amendment. Under the circumstances, the agents used reasonable force when they broke through Petitioners’ apartment door with guns drawn after knocking and announcing themselves as law enforcement agents. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396–97 (1989). Furthermore, the BIA correctly concluded that reasonable suspicion was not required to justify detaining Petitioners while the search warrant was being executed. See Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 98–102 (2005); Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 705 (1981). This is so even though the search warrant did not seek evidence of crimes involving violence. See Dawson v. City of Seattle, 435 2 16-71119 F.3d 1054, 1065–70 (9th Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the detention and questioning of Petitioners did not prolong the search of their residence. Petitioner Gamez-Lopez confirmed that, after she produced two of the three documents named in the search warrant, the agents continued to look for the third document – a letter from the Social Security Administration. In total, the detention lasted only 40 to 60 minutes. 2. We also agree with the BIA that the agents’ actions were not so coercive as to violate the Fifth Amendment. Petitioners were detained and questioned for ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals