Guillen-Jimenez v. Sessions, 685 F. App'x 15

Petitioner Abraham Guillen-Jimenez, an alleged Ecuadorian national, challenged his arrest and removal order after immigration officers stopped and arrested him with two coworkers.
He moved to suppress evidence of alienage and to terminate proceedings, submitting an affidavit describing the stop and officers’ conduct.
The Immigration Judge denied the suppression motion and ordered removal; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed on November 20, 2015.
Guillen-Jimenez argued the stop and seizure were egregious Fourth Amendment violations warranting suppression, including a claim the stop was race-based and that the seizure was severe.
The BIA and IJ declined to hold an evidentiary hearing, concluding the affidavit did not make a prima facie showing sufficient to require testimony.
The Second Circuit reviewed the BIA and IJ decisions and denied the petition for review, finding the affidavit insufficient to justify suppression or an evidentiary hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner’s affidavit justified suppression for a race-based stop	Guillen-Jimenez argued the stop was based solely on Hispanic appearance	Government argued affidavit lacked factual assertions about race/appearance	Court held affidavit silent on race; cannot infer race-based stop; no suppression
Whether affidavit established an egregious Fourth Amendment seizure	Petitioner claimed seizure was severe and officers’ conduct egregious	Government argued no allegations of threats, force, denial of counsel, or severe coercion	Court held affidavit did not allege severity or coercive conduct sufficient to be egregious
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on suppression motion	Petitioner sought hearing to present testimony supporting affidavit	Government asserted affidavit failed to make prima facie showing under Barcenas framework	Court held affidavit failed prima facie showing; hearing not required
Whether any other regulatory suppression claims warranted review	Petitioner raised regulation-based suppression claims	Government maintained claims were not meaningfully pursued on appeal	Court declined to consider those claims as waived

Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir.) (standards for reviewing BIA/IJ decisions)
Cotzojay v. Holder, 725 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2013) (burden-shifting and prima facie requirement for suppression; review standards)
Almeida-Amaral v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 231 (2d Cir.) (egregious Fourth Amendment violation standard in removal proceedings)
Pretzantzin v. Holder, 736 F.3d 641 (2d Cir.) (nighttime, warrantless home raids may be egregious violations)
INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984) (circumstances suggesting suppression where right to counsel repeatedly denied)
Oliva-Ramos v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 694 F.3d 259 (3d Cir.) (factors relevant to severity of seizure)
Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114 (2d Cir.) (issues not sufficiently argued are waived)