Puc-Ruiz v. Holder
629 F.3d 771
8th Cir.2010Background
- Puc-Ruiz, a Mexican national, was arrested at Mexico on Main in St. Charles, MO, for alleged alcohol violation and detained by local police.
- ICE received notice and issued a detainer; Puc-Ruiz was later taken into ICE custody and interviewed by Agent Othic.
- Form I-213 memorialized Puc-Ruiz as an undocumented alien with last entry in 1998; IDENT record showed prior voluntary departure.
- Puc-Ruiz was charged with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) and removal proceedings commenced; arrest record expunged later as the arrest was baseless.
- IJ denied suppression and voluntary departure; Puc-Ruiz appealed to the BIA, which affirmed and denied strike; petition for review followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fourth Amendment suppression is warranted | Puc-Ruiz argues suppression of alienage evidence from unlawful arrest. | Government contends Lopez-Mendoza concededly allows limited suppression only for egregious violations. | No egregious violation; suppression not required. |
| Whether due process was violated by ICE questioning | ICE coerced or failed to inform rights, violating due process. | Statements voluntary; no coercion; removal proceedings civil, Miranda warnings not required. | Due process not violated; statements voluntary. |
| Whether ICE regulatory violations invalidate the case | Violations of 8 C.F.R. § 287.3 taint the evidence. | Any violation was harmless and prejudice not shown; not constitutionally mandated. | Harmless error; prejudice not demonstrated. |
| Whether the IJ's written decision can be struck as ultra vires | IJ's decision issued after appeal; should be struck. | BIA considered harmless error; remand not required. | Harmless error; no remand. |
| Whether denial of voluntary departure was proper | Denial violates due process and equal protection. | Discretionary denial limits review; no colorable constitutional claim or prejudice shown. | Petition dismissed as to voluntary departure; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (U.S. 1984) (exclusionary rule not generally applied in civil deportation hearings absent egregious violations)
- United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1976) (detachments of evidence in civil actions—deterrence considerations)
- Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1952) (brutal conduct shocking the conscience as example of egregious violation)
- Almeida-Amaral v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2006) (egregiousness required; more than mere violation)
- In re Garcia-Flores, 17 I. & N. Dec. 325 (BIA 1980) (prejudice required for regulatory violation; suppression not presumed)
- Martinez-Camargo v. INS, 282 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 2002) (ICE could use routine booking information to establish removability)
- Ali v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2006) (prejudice cannot be presumed for § 287.3 violations)
- Navarro-Chalan v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2004) (presumption of prejudice not applicable to § 287.3 violations)