Cruz-Ramos v. Sessions
687 F. App'x 79
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Gregorio Cruz-Ramos, alleged Mexican national, was ordered removed after an IJ denied his motion to suppress admissions of alienage made during a Border Patrol stop.
- Border Patrol Form I-213 recounted that Cruz-Ramos accelerated through a red light, nearly caused an accident by watching the Border Patrol vehicle in his mirror, and that passengers ducked down and watched the Border Patrol vehicle.
- Cruz-Ramos sought suppression, submitting an affidavit asserting he was driving within the speed limit, did not believe he broke traffic laws, and that the stop occurred because he and his passengers are Hispanic.
- The IJ denied a suppression hearing; the BIA affirmed that denial, and Cruz-Ramos petitioned this Court for review.
- The central question was whether Cruz-Ramos’s affidavit established a prima facie showing of an egregious Fourth Amendment violation warranting suppression and a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cruz-Ramos made a prima facie showing of an egregious Fourth Amendment violation to obtain a suppression hearing | Cruz-Ramos: affidavit shows stop was motivated by race (Hispanic) and that he complied with traffic laws, so stop was egregious | Gov.: Form I-213 provides specific articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion under Brignoni-Ponce; affidavit is conclusory and fails to rebut those facts or show rare/severe misconduct | Denied — affidavit insufficient; no prima facie showing of rare/severe (egregious) misconduct, so no suppression hearing required |
| Whether the Border Patrol stop lacked reasonable suspicion under Brignoni-Ponce | Cruz-Ramos: challenged justification as pretextual and racially motivated | Gov.: articulated facts (traffic violation, risky driving, passengers’ behavior) justified reasonable suspicion to stop vehicle | Held for Government — stop permitted by Brignoni-Ponce rationale |
| Whether the agency erred by relying on the I-213 without holding a hearing | Cruz-Ramos: I-213 should be suppressed absent live testimony due to alleged constitutional/regulatory violations | Gov.: petitioner failed to make threshold showing entitling him to a hearing; agency may rely on I-213 absent a prima facie showing | Denied — agency did not err in denying hearing or relying on I-213 |
| Whether alleged regulatory violations (non-constitutional) warranted a suppression hearing | Cruz-Ramos: alleged egregious regulatory violations require hearing | Gov.: same threshold problem; petitioner did not show rare/severe regulatory misconduct | Denied — identical reasons as constitutional claim; no hearing warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (court reviewed both IJ and BIA decisions for completeness)
- Cotzojay v. Holder, 725 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2013) (explaining burden-shifting and standards for suppression motion prima facie showing)
- Almeida-Amaral v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2006) (describing ‘‘egregious’’ Fourth Amendment violations standard)
- Maldonado v. Holder, 763 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2014) (noting egregious Fourth Amendment violations are rare)
- United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) (Border Patrol may stop vehicles based on specific articulable facts and reasonable inferences indicating presence of illegal aliens)