Rodriguez v. Barr, 943 F.3d 134

In June 2007 New Haven adopted a municipal ID program; ICE/DHS officials were aware and internally criticized the plan. 36 hours later ICE conducted early‑morning raids in Fair Haven, a largely Hispanic neighborhood.
Agents entered multiple apartments (including 546 Woodward Ave.), pushed past residents, made derogatory remarks, and arrested about 30 people; only a few had outstanding removal orders.
Christian Rodriguez arrived at 546 Woodward Ave. to return a coworker’s car, spoke Spanish, lacked ID, was stopped, handcuffed, arrested, and detained for 21 days.
A contemporaneous Form I‑213 describing the arrest (including alleged admissions and consent to enter) contained details later found unreliable and was withdrawn by DHS; DHS later relied on an Ecuadorian birth certificate and criminal printout.
Rodriguez moved to suppress evidence as the product of an egregious, race‑based Fourth Amendment violation; the IJ denied suppression, the BIA remanded multiple times for factfinding, ultimately affirmed denial; Rodriguez sought review.
Rodriguez separately moved to reopen sua sponte pending adjudication of a U‑visa; the BIA denied that untimely motion, USCIS later denied the U‑visa, and this Court denied review of the reopening claim as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rodriguez made a prima facie showing that his arrest was an egregious Fourth Amendment violation (race‑based) requiring suppression of alienage evidence	Rodriguez: raid context, timing after municipal ID enactment, derogatory remarks, unreliable I‑213, paucity of individualized cause, and his Spanish‑only speech support inference of race‑based seizure	Government: record lacks independent evidence; petitioner may only litigate what happened to him; IJ credibility findings undermined suppression claim	Court: Rodriguez made a prima facie showing of an egregious, race‑based Fourth Amendment violation; grant petition No. 15‑3728 and remand to BIA for further proceedings
Whether the BIA abused discretion by denying sua sponte reopening/administrative closure pending a U‑visa adjudication	Rodriguez: prima facie approvable U‑visa petition and Sanchez Sosa factors justify continuance/reopening	Government: motion was untimely; BIA has broad sua sponte discretion and did not err in declining to reopen	Court: Denied review of reopening (No. 17‑273) because USCIS denied the U‑visa; no relief available, so petition denied

Zuniga‑Perez v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2018) (treating Form I‑213 reliability and admission issues)
Almeida‑Amaral v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2006) (standard for egregious constitutional violations in removal proceedings)
Cotzojay v. Holder, 725 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2013) (Barcenas burden‑shifting framework for suppression)
Maldonado v. Holder, 763 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2014) (requirement that affidavits be based on personal knowledge to make prima facie case)
United States v. Brignoni‑Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) (race or ancestry alone cannot justify stops)
INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984) (limits on litigating facts beyond the petitioner’s own encounter)
Matadin v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2008) (review of combined IJ and BIA opinions)
Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2006) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for motions to reopen)
Mahmood v. Holder, 570 F.3d 466 (2d Cir. 2009) (limits on judicial review of BIA sua sponte reopening; remand where BIA misperceived law)
Mhany Mgmt., Inc. v. Cty. of Nassau, 819 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 2016) (circumstantial evidence can support inference of discriminatory intent)
United States v. Manzo‑Jurado, 457 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2006) (language inability and Hispanic appearance insufficient for reasonable suspicion)
Yoc‑Us v. Attorney Gen. of United States, 932 F.3d 98 (3d Cir. 2019) (absence of other reasons for detention can support inference of race‑based stop)