Maldonado v. Holder
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15627
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Petitioners seek review of BIA orders dismissing their appeals from IJ decisions and denying motions to remand and reopen.
- The IJ denied suppression hearings and suppression of Form I-213s, and ordered removal.
- Danbury sting: in Kennedy Park, DPD and ICE conducted a joint operation; undercover police transported petitioners to a lot, where they were arrested and processed, producing Form I-213s with incriminating statements.
- Petitioners moved to suppress the Form I-213s and sought termination; the BIA dismissed their appeals and later denied motions to reopen based on new civil-rights evidence.
- The majority applies the Cotzojay burden-shifting framework requiring an affidavit showing a potential egregious violation before a suppression hearing.
- The court ultimately denies the petitions, holding no egregious Fourth Amendment violation was shown and suppression hearing is not warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether egregious Fourth Amendment violations require suppression | Petitioners argue egregious violations occurred | Government contends affidavits fail prima facie to show egregiousness | No suppression required; no prima facie egregious violation shown |
| Whether ordinary exclusionary principles apply in removal proceedings when arrests involve local police | Petitioners contend ordinary exclusion should apply due to local police involvement | ICE/agency involvement and civil-removal context negate application | Exclusionary rule not applied absent egregious violations |
| Whether pre-hearing regulatory violations by ICE justify termination | Petitioners allege ICE regulatory violations justify termination | Violations are harmless or non-egregious and do not justify termination | Termination denied; pre-hearing violations not grounds absent prejudice or egregious conduct |
| Whether the BIA properly denied remand/reopen based on new evidence | New evidence from civil suit should affect remand/reopen | Evidence immaterial or not demonstrating egregious rights violations | BIA did not abuse discretion; remand/reopen denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez-Mendoza v. INS, 468 U.S. 1032 (U.S. 1984) (exclusionary rule generally not applied in removal proceedings; egregious carve-out exists)
- Almeida-Amaral v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2006) (defines egregiousness as highly improper conduct that undermines fairness)
- Cotzojay v. Holder, 725 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2013) (burden-shifting framework for suppression motions in removal proceedings)
- Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427 (2d Cir. 2008) (pre-hearing regulatory violations are not grounds for termination absent prejudice)
- Pinto-Montoya v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2008) (reliance on exclusionary principles in civil removal context)
- Lopez-Mendoza v. INS (2d Cir. case often cited as Lopez-Mendoza plurality guidance), 468 U.S. 1032 (U.S. 1984) (context for exclusionary rule in removal; emphasizes administrative burden)
- United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1976) (exclusionary rule considerations in civil proceedings against state actors)
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (U.S. 2012) (context for state/local enforcement and immigration status concerns)