Maria Rodriguez-Echeverria v. Loretta E. Lynch
671 F. App'x 430
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Maria De Rodriguez-Echeverria, a Mexican national, faced removal based on an IJ finding she engaged in alien smuggling in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i).
- CBP officers obtained a statement from Rodriguez in which she effectively admitted to smuggling; she sought suppression arguing officers failed to advise her under 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c).
- No Notice to Appear had been filed at the time of the statement; immigration proceedings had not formally begun when the statement was taken.
- Rodriguez also sought cancellation of removal and argued she could “tack” her father’s period of lawful residence onto her own for eligibility; the BIA denied relief based on applicable precedent.
- Rodriguez requested a continuance to pursue a U-visa; the IJ denied the continuance and the BIA affirmed but performed its own analysis rather than reviewing the IJ’s discretionary findings.
- The Ninth Circuit panel denied the suppression and tacking challenges, but granted and remanded on the continuance/U-visa issue because the IJ failed to apply required tests and make required findings and the BIA improperly substituted its own analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether Rodriguez’s statement should be suppressed because CBP did not advise her under 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c) | Rodriguez: suppression required because she wasn’t advised of rights before her statement | Gov: no suppression because she was not in "formal proceedings" when statement taken (no NTA filed) | Denied — statement admissible; no formal proceedings yet, so regulation didn’t require advisal (Samayoa‑Martinez controlling) |
| 2. Whether Rodriguez can "tack" her father's period of residence to qualify for cancellation of removal | Rodriguez: tacking should allow her to meet continuous residence requirement | Gov/BIA: tacking after lawful admission not permitted under controlling precedent | Denied — BIA’s refusal affirmed; controlling Supreme Court precedent applied retroactively |
| 3. Whether IJ abused discretion by denying continuance to pursue a U‑visa | Rodriguez: IJ should have granted continuance or made required findings to allow U‑visa pursuit | Gov: IJ acted within discretion in denying continuance; BIA affirmed | Granted/remanded — IJ failed to apply required tests/make findings; BIA improperly substituted its own analysis; matter remanded for further proceedings |
| 4. (Procedural claims: tactical concession withdrawal & clerical correction) | Rodriguez: IJ/BIA erred in refusing to allow withdrawal of tactical concession and by correcting clerical error | Gov: such issues would not alter outcome | Denied/Not reached — court declined to consider because resolution would not change result |
Key Cases Cited
- Samayoa‑Martinez v. Holder, 558 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2009) (formal proceedings trigger for 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c) advisal requirement)
- United States v. de la Torre‑Jimenez, 771 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2014) (panel cannot overrule circuit precedent)
- Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (standard on binding precedent within circuit)
- Zumel v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 2015) (BIA may not substitute its own analysis for IJ’s discretionary findings)
- Hernandez‑Velasquez v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2010) (procedural protections for continuance requests)
- Owino v. Holder, 771 F.3d 527 (9th Cir. 2014) (standards for evaluating IJ’s exercise of discretion)