17-1080-ag Ramirez-Aguilar v. Barr UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York on the 6th day of September, two thousand nineteen. Present: RALPH K. WINTER, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ REGINO RAMIREZ-AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. 17-1080-ag WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ For Petitioner: Jose Perez, Syracuse, N.Y. For Respondent: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, Kathryn M. McKinney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision is DENIED. Petitioner Regino Ramirez-Aguilar, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a March 15, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a January 13, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering his removal. In re Regino Ramirez-Aguilar, No. A 206 001 183 (B.I.A. Mar. 15, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 001 183 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo, N.Y. Jan. 13, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and issues of law de novo. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Almeida-Amaral v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 231, 233-34 (2d Cir. 2006). Ramirez-Aguilar challenges the IJ’s denial of his request to suppress his admission of alienage and his request for a continuance. We reject both challenges. A. Suppression Motion The exclusionary rule generally does not apply in a civil removal proceeding, but may apply if there have been “egregious violations of Fourth Amendment or other liberties that might transgress notions of fundamental fairness.” INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1050 (1984) (plurality). “[E]xclusion of evidence is appropriate . . . if record evidence established . . . that an egregious violation that was fundamentally unfair had occurred.” Almeida-Amaral, 461 F.3d at 235. Such an egregious violation may occur where a “stop was based on race (or some other grossly improper consideration).” Id. We have approved the BIA’s ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals