Ciro Espinoza v. Jefferson Sessions
694 F. App'x 526
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Ciro Chavelas Espinoza, a Mexican national, sought review of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from an IJ decision that denied his motion to suppress statements and terminate removal proceedings.
- Espinoza argued his statements to immigration officials at the border were the product of an egregious Fourth Amendment violation and violated 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c).
- The immigration judge admitted Espinoza’s border statements into evidence; Espinoza challenged their admission as inaccurate, coerced, and prejudicial to due process.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ, and the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo Espinoza’s suppression and constitutional claims.
- The panel concluded Espinoza failed to show an egregious Fourth Amendment violation, failed to demonstrate a regulatory or due process error, and did not establish inaccuracy or coercion sufficient to exclude the statements.
- The petition for review was denied; the panel declined to revisit Ninth Circuit precedent that foreclosed parts of Espinoza’s arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statements obtained at the border must be suppressed as an egregious Fourth Amendment violation | Espinoza: statements obtained via conduct amounting to an egregious Fourth Amendment violation warrant suppression | Government: no deliberate or objectively obvious constitutional violation occurred | Denied — Espinoza failed to show an egregious Fourth Amendment violation |
| Whether statements were obtained in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c) | Espinoza: officials violated the regulation, rendering statements inadmissible | Government: Samayoa‑Martinez controls, foreclosing suppression under the regulation | Denied — Samayoa‑Martinez forecloses Espinoza’s regulatory claim |
| Whether admission of the statements violated due process (accuracy, coercion, fairness) | Espinoza: statements were inaccurate/coerced and their admission was fundamentally unfair | Government: statements were probative, reliable, and Espinoza did not meet burden to exclude them | Denied — admission was fundamentally fair and Espinoza did not establish inaccuracy or coercion |
| Whether Espinoza had a right to cross-examine border officials who prepared the statement | Espinoza: cross‑examination was required to challenge the statement | Government: no right to cross‑examine to prevent establishment of uncontested facts | Denied — no cross‑examination right to bar admission of uncontested government records |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez‑Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir.) (standards for reviewing suppression and constitutional claims)
- Lopez‑Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir.) (definition of egregious Fourth Amendment violation)
- Samayoa‑Martinez v. Holder, 558 F.3d 897 (9th Cir.) (limits on suppressing statements under 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c))
- Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir.) (due process burden to show error and prejudice for excluding evidence)
- Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308 (9th Cir.) (burden to establish basis to exclude government records; cross‑examination limits)
- Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672 (9th Cir.) (panel cannot overrule circuit precedent absent intervening higher‑court or en banc decision)