Miguel Pacheco-Miranda v. Jefferson Sessions
705 F. App'x 526
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Miguel Pacheco-Miranda, a Mexican national, seeks review of DHS’s January 29, 2014 reinstatement of a 1998 removal order; he does not dispute the factual predicates for reinstatement (identity, prior removal, unlawful reentry).
- Pacheco-Miranda argues DHS violated due process by failing to consider that his federal custody resulted from a local police traffic stop that was allegedly prolonged to investigate immigration status, amounting to an "egregious" Fourth Amendment violation.
- The record suggests the Sidney Police Department officer (and possibly DHS personnel) engaged in unconstitutional conduct that led to Pacheco-Miranda’s custody.
- Pacheco-Miranda relies on Villa-Anguiano to argue that due process entitles unlawfully present aliens to consideration of issues relevant to DHS’s discretionary reinstatement decision.
- The government concedes that a Fourth Amendment violation that undermines a factual predicate for reinstatement would require relief, but DHS argues the alleged constitutional violation here did not affect the reinstatement predicates or the reinstatement process.
- The Ninth Circuit concluded that, even assuming an egregious Fourth Amendment violation, Pacheco-Miranda’s claim does not require remand because the violation does not call into question the factual predicates for reinstatement nor did it deny him an opportunity to be heard in the reinstatement process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process required DHS to reconsider reinstatement because petitioner’s custody arose from an egregious Fourth Amendment violation | That an egregious Fourth Amendment violation (traffic stop prolonged to investigate immigration status) should be considered by DHS and could affect its discretion to reinstate | DHS: reinstatement regulation’s requirements satisfied; the alleged Fourth Amendment violation does not affect the three reinstatement predicates or the reinstatement process | Denied — no remand required because the Fourth Amendment claim does not challenge the factual predicates or deny opportunity to be heard in reinstatement proceedings |
| Whether Villa-Anguiano requires remand where constitutional misconduct occurred before DHS custody | Villa-Anguiano supports remand when DHS failed to account for facts calling into question removal validity | DHS: Villa-Anguiano is distinguishable; here the alleged violation did not undermine predicates or DHS’s ability to evaluate them | Held distinguishable — Villa-Anguiano remand rationale does not apply here |
| Whether petitioner may use a § 1983 claim or exclusionary-rule analog to obtain relief from reinstatement | Petitioner suggests constitutional violation may bear on immigration proceedings similarly to exclusionary-rule effects in removal hearings | Government: exclusionary-rule analog not sought; § 1983 is separate remedy; DHS guidance does not create enforceable rights | Court: petitioner can pursue § 1983 but not relief from reinstatement based on this claim |
| Whether DHS guidance or prosecutorial discretion compels different result | Petitioner points to DHS guidance favoring discretion in such cases | Government: guidance does not create substantive rights and § 1252(g) bars review of DHS’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion | Held: Guidance does not alter jurisdictional limits; court lacks power to review DHS’s decision to reinstate versus other prosecutorial choices |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.) (scope of appellate review of reinstatement decisions)
- Villa-Anguiano v. Holder, 727 F.3d 873 (9th Cir.) (remand required where DHS failed to account for facts calling into question removal order validity)
- Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir.) (definition and examples of egregious Fourth Amendment violations)
- Orhorhaghe v. I.N.S., 38 F.3d 488 (9th Cir.) (egregiousness framework for Fourth Amendment violations)
- Morales de Soto v. Lynch, 824 F.3d 822 (9th Cir.) (procedural challenges to reinstatement process)
- Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484 (9th Cir.) (reinstatement process facially sufficient)
- Ponta-Garcia v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 557 F.3d 158 (3d Cir.) (reinstatement regulation functioning as procedural safeguard)
- United States v. Ortiz-Hernandez, 427 F.3d 567 (9th Cir.) (limitations on invoking exclusionary-rule analogues in immigration contexts)
- James v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 159 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir.) (agency guidance does not create enforceable substantive rights)