Jane Downs v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
758 F.3d 994
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Jane Waitherero Downs, a Kenyan national admitted as an F‑1 student in 2002, completed a nursing assistant course and worked at a nursing home while on nonimmigrant status.
- On two Hutchinson Community College (HCC) applications and later on I‑9 forms, Downs checked boxes indicating she was a U.S. citizen.
- After marrying a U.S. citizen, Downs applied to adjust status and signed consent authorizing release of her records; USCIS obtained her HCC applications and confronted her at an adjustment interview.
- USCIS denied adjustment, commenced removal proceedings alleging (among other things) a false claim to U.S. citizenship; Downs conceded one ground of removability but contested the false‑claim allegation and sought suppression of the HCC applications and I‑9 forms.
- The IJ denied suppression, found Downs had falsely claimed citizenship (rendering her ineligible for adjustment), the BIA affirmed, and Downs petitioned for review arguing INA § 274A(b)(5) and FERPA barred use of those records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether INA § 274A(b)(5) (the I‑9 use restriction) prohibits admission of I‑9s in removal proceedings | Downs: “this Act” limits I‑9 use to IRCA enforcement only, barring use in removal proceedings | Government: “this Act” refers to the INA; removal proceedings enforce the INA so I‑9s are admissible | Court: “this Act” means the INA; I‑9s may be used in removal proceedings |
| Whether USCIS’s obtaining and using HCC applications violated FERPA and required suppression | Downs: FERPA prohibits disclosure/use of educational records; exclusion is required | Government: FERPA does not create a private right enforceable by suppression; even assuming a statutory violation, exclusionary rule is inappropriate in removal proceedings | Court: Exclusionary rule generally unavailable for statutory (non‑constitutional) violations in removal proceedings; suppression denied |
| Whether other claimed errors (judicial notice of HCC being public; burden conflation) may be reviewed | Downs: raised those errors on petition | Government: BIA did not address; issues not exhausted | Court: Downs failed to administratively exhaust; court lacks jurisdiction to consider them |
Key Cases Cited
- Falaja v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2005) (review of BIA decisions includes adopted IJ rulings)
- Ismail v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 970 (8th Cir. 2005) (same)
- Garcia‑Torres v. Holder, 660 F.3d 333 (8th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of legal questions in removal cases)
- Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Whiting, 131 S. Ct. 1968 (2011) (statutory text controls over legislative history)
- Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012) (discussion of limits on I‑9 use in preemption context)
- INS v. Lopez‑Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984) (exclusionary rule generally unavailable in removal proceedings)
- Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976) (exclusionary rule’s primary purpose is deterrence of Fourth Amendment violations)
- Sanchez‑Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331 (2006) (exclusionary rule rarely applied for statutory violations)
- Puc‑Ruiz v. Holder, 629 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2010) (applying Lopez‑Mendoza to reject exclusion in removal context)
- Martinez Carcamo v. Holder, 713 F.3d 916 (8th Cir. 2013) (exclusion in civil removal context limited to egregious Fourth Amendment violations)
- Webster v. Fall, 266 U.S. 507 (1925) (issues not argued and decided are not precedential)