Oliva-Ramos v. Attorney General of the United States
694 F.3d 259
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Erick Oliva-Ramos petitions for review of a BIA order affirming removal to Guatemala and seeks to reopen and supplement the record.
- Oliva-Ramos argued the exclusionary rule should apply in removal proceedings due to egregious and widespread Fourth Amendment violations during a 4:30 a.m. ICE raid on his New Jersey home.
- The IJ denied the suppression motion, holding that Lopez-Mendoza does not apply to removal proceedings, and accepted government evidence of alienage.
- The BIA declined to remand or exclude the evidence, and Oliva-Ramos appealed to the Third Circuit.
- The Third Circuit held that the BIA abused its discretion by not evaluating alleged egregious or widespread violations and by denying remand to consider new evidence, vacating in part and remanding for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BIA misapplied Lopez-Mendoza | Oliva-Ramos argues exclusionary rule applies for egregious/widespread violations. | Hoeffner contends Lopez-Mendoza is inapplicable or nonbinding beyond its dicta in removal contexts. | Yes; exclusionary rule may apply for egregious/widespread violations. |
| Whether the BIA abused its discretion by denying remand for new evidence | New FOIA-produced ICE materials show widespread abuses; remand is warranted. | BIA did not need remand absent Lopez-Mendoza analysis or new evidence | Yes; remand to consider new evidence and potential suppression is warranted. |
| Whether the regulatory and Fourth Amendment analyses (consent to enter, seizure, arrest) were properly evaluated | BIA failed to apply proper Fourth Amendment inquiry and to assess voluntariness and seizure under Mendenhall. | BIA relied on prior agency findings; did not thoroughly reevaluate consent and seizure. | BIA erred; requires remand to assess whether consent was voluntary and whether seizure/arrest violated rights. |
| Whether 8 C.F.R. § 292.5(b) right to counsel was correctly applied | Right to counsel existed before formal proceedings and was not properly provided. | Right to counsel issues were properly addressed under prior regulations. | Affirmed in part; remand not necessary for this issue, as proper notice occurred before formal proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (U.S. 1984) (exclusionary rule generally not applied in removal unless egregious or widespread violations)
- Almeida-Amaral v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2006) (flexible, case-by-case approach to egregious Fourth Amendment violations; factors for egregiousness)
- Argueta v. United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 643 F.3d 60 (3d Cir. 2011) (pattern of enforcement abuses; collateral arrests context)
- Babula v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 665 F.2d 293 (3d Cir. 1981) (limits on interrogation under Fourth Amendment and scope of authority)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963) (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine relevance to suppression analysis)