844 F.3d 74
1st Cir.2016Background
- Corado-Arriaza, a Guatemalan national, entered the U.S. on a B-2 visa in June 2005 and remained past its December 2005 expiration.
- On Feb. 27, 2013, ICE agents detained him at his restaurant workplace after initially seeking a different person; they handcuffed him, questioned him, searched his pockets/wallet, retrieved his passport from his jacket, and placed him in the agents' vehicle.
- Corado-Arriaza signed that he had no green card and admitted arrival on a visa while in custody; he alleges agents never read Miranda-type warnings or advised of counsel/rights under DHS regulations.
- DHS later served a Notice to Appear charging removability for overstaying; DHS submitted Corado-Arriaza’s passport and Form I-94 showing arrival June 27, 2005 and authorized stay through Dec. 25, 2005.
- Corado-Arriaza moved to suppress the passport and Form I-94 as fruits of an "egregious" Fourth Amendment violation and as obtained in violation of DHS regulations; the IJ denied suppression and the BIA affirmed, finding no prima facie egregious violation and that DHS had independent evidence of removability.
- The First Circuit reviewed de novo and denied the petition for review, holding suppression was not warranted and regulatory violations do not create a suppression remedy in removal proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence must be suppressed in removal proceedings due to an "egregious" Fourth Amendment violation | Corado-Arriaza: ICE's detention, handcuffing, questioning without advisals and visible weapons rendered the seizure coercive and egregious, warranting suppression under Lopez-Mendoza | DHS: Exclusionary rule generally does not apply in removal proceedings; petitioner failed to show Fourth Amendment conduct rising to egregiousness and DHS had independent evidence | Court: No prima facie showing of an egregious violation under Lopez-Mendoza; suppression denied |
| Whether DHS regulatory violations (8 C.F.R. §§ 287.3(c), 287.8(b)(1)) require suppression | Corado-Arriaza: ICE's failure to advise of reason for arrest, right to representation, and that statements may be used against him warrants suppression | DHS: Those regulations do not create a private right to suppression in removal proceedings | Court: Regulations do not confer a suppression remedy; rejection of regulatory-violation argument |
| Whether independent evidence (Form I-94) supports removability even if suppression were warranted | Corado-Arriaza: The passport/I-94 were fruits of the challenged encounter and should be excluded | DHS: Form I-94 was obtained independently and established removability regardless of the arrest | Court: Even assuming egregiousness, DHS presented sufficient independent evidence (I-94) to establish removability |
| Whether the BIA/IJ erred in facts or law when assuming petitioner's declaration true and denying suppression | Corado-Arriaza: Declaration established coercive circumstances; IJ/BIA misapplied precedent | DHS: IJ/BIA correctly applied precedent and considered totality of the circumstances | Court: Affirmed IJ/BIA; totality of circumstances fell short of egregiousness; precedents correctly applied |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (exclusionary rule generally does not apply in removal proceedings; suppression only for egregious Fourth Amendment violations)
- INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (consensual workplace questioning and presence of officers do not automatically render encounters nonconsensual)
- United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (mere presence of holstered firearms by uniformed officers does not by itself render encounters coercive)
- Navarro-Chalan v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 19 (regulatory provisions do not create enforceable rights to suppression in immigration proceedings)
- Garcia-Aguilar v. Lynch, 806 F.3d 671 (First Circuit: standard of review and application of Lopez-Mendoza in suppression context)