NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 21-1325 _____________ WILMAR LEONEL GREGORIO RIVERA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A216-545-129) Immigration Judge: Steven A. Morley _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 20, 2022 Before: JORDAN, RESTREPO and SMITH, Circuit Judges (Filed: January 26, 2022) _______________ OPINION ∗ _______________ ∗ This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. JORDAN, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Wilmar Gregorio Rivera is a native and citizen of Guatemala. He entered the United States approximately fifteen years ago without being admitted or paroled. In 2018, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) placed him in removal proceedings after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officers obtained evidence of his alienage during an investigatory stop. During those proceedings, Rivera sought to suppress that evidence, arguing it had been obtained in an egregious violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Rivera’s motion to suppress and ordered him removed, and his appeal was dismissed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). We will deny Rivera’s now-pending petition for review. I. BACKGROUND 1 In the early hours of March 13, 2018, Rivera’s employer picked him up in Philadelphia for work. Rivera rode in the passenger seat of the employer’s van, and they drove to pick up their colleague, Nelson Castaneda Perez. Unbeknownst to Rivera, Perez was being sought by ICE officers who were conducting a fugitive enforcement operation at Perez’s home that day. 2 1 There are slight differences between the facts as described in Rivera’s affidavit and as laid out in his Record of Deportable Alien, Form I-213, on which the IJ relied. As discussed below, we dispose of Rivera’s appeal on his argument that he set out a prima facie case for an evidentiary hearing, so we accept his affidavit as true for purposes of this decision. 2 Perez was a target for ICE because he was an alien with pending criminal charges. 2 ICE officers observed an individual matching Perez’s description exit the home and enter the van, so they followed the vehicle for roughly six blocks before making an investigatory stop. The officers pulled the van over and questioned the three occupants. First, the officers questioned the employer, who identified himself and, upon request, produced appropriate identification. They then questioned Rivera. When Rivera could not produce identification, the officers asked for his name and where he was from. He identified himself and said he was a citizen of Guatemala. Lastly, the officers spoke with Perez. The officers called him by the wrong name but ultimately identified him using records and photographs from Perez’s prior arrest. The officers then removed Perez from the van, arrested him, and placed him in the patrol vehicle. After that, the officers returned to the van and took Rivera’s fingerprints to run …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals