Enrique Soto-Garcia, A087 534 842 (BIA May 7, 2013)

7/30/2019 Enrique Soto-Garcia, A087 534 842 (BIA May 7, 2013)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/enrique-soto-garcia-a087-534-842-bia-may-7-2013 1/18

Shaw John D.Law Oices of Shaw & Gould1536 W Thomas RdPhoenix, 85015

Name: SOTO GARCIA ENRIQUE

Dpartmn f Justc

Executive Oce r Immigraton Reiew

Board ofImgton ppeasOce ofthe Cek

507 esb1r g 'ik. S1l !000

F Cmrch Vr g a 24

HS/ICE Office of Chief Counse - PHOPOBox 25158Phoenix 85002

A 087-534-842

Date of his noice 5/7/2013

nclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order n he above-referenced case.

nclosre

bs:uly Rg

Sncery,

Du c

Donna Carr Chief Cerk

-: 1 ' f

Us: Dkt

Cite as: Enrique Soto-Garcia, A087 534 842 (BIA May 7, 2013)



•

, U. D of uc Decisio ofe Board ofmmiaio AppealsExecutive Oce r Imigraion Review

Fas Chuch, Viga 22041

Fie: A087 534 842 Phoenix,

n re: ENRQUE SOTO-GARCA

REMOVAL PROCEEDNGS

APPEAL

Date

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Jo D Saw, squire

ON BEHAF OF DS:

CHARGE

Reed H AenAssisant Chief Conse

MAY -7 3

Notice Sec 212(a)(6)(A)(i), &N Act [8 USC § l82(a)(6)(A)(i) Present withot being admted or paroled

APPLCATON Termiation

n a deision dated June 2, 201, te mmiation Jdge grted he respondents motio tosppress evidence submied by te Deparent of Homeland Security (DHS") to establish terespondent's removabiliy and did not sstain te carge o removability isted above nstead,the miation Jdge teminated proceedings and te HS ha appealed The record ofproceedings will be remanded

The sse on appeal is whether evdence sbmited by te DHS, speically the Record ofDepoable/nadmissible Alien (Fom 23) (Ex 3), and the statements made by the respondet to the DHS when he wa detained, are inadmissible to estabis tat he is an aien and, erere,sbject to remova as carged Altoug e Spreme Court has hed hat the FouhAmendment exclusionay rue generaly does not apply in depotation proceedings, where temain issues are identity and aienage, it a e open he possiiiy that the exclsionay rulemigt apply n caes involving egregios violations of Fourt Amendment or other iberties that migt transgress notions of ndamental ess and ndeine te probative vaue of theevidence obtained S I LopzMnoza 46 US 1032, 10551 (984) (holding that theFout Amendments exclusonary rle is generaly not considered applcabe in removalproeedis less the onstitutonal vioatos e egreios s aso rhorhagh F3d 4, 49293 (9th Cir 1994 (oldn at even in adminstative proeedns, where theexcusionary e ordinariy does not apply, evidece must be excuded if obtaied in deliberatevioation o the Fourth Amendment or by codut wic a reaonabe ocer shod ow isunconstittiona)

removal proeedngs, an aien seekin to excude evidence baed on a violation of theForth Amedment beas the bden of establishing a prima faci cae that the evidence sholdbe sppressed Mattr of Tang 3 & ec 691 (BA 197 ) Ony when ae comead w adeqate evidence in support of suppression wll the brden sh to te DHS to




A087 54 842

justi te manner in whic it obtained the evidence. Mattr of Barnas 9 &N Dec. 609(BA 988)

Te evidence submited to support e DHS's alegation tat te respondent is removable as alien not admited or paroed was primariy derived om a veicuar stop of a car in wic terespondent was driving with tree oter men, including his brother who was driving, and wichresuted in he respondent's arrest by US. Customs and Border Protection (CBP") agents inOctober of 2009 (. at 4; s Exh ) Te respondent presented te tesimony of te tree oer occupants of te ca in wich e was driving wen stopped by border patro agents at teAizona-Caiia border (J. at 46; Tr at 264) Al tee of te passengers, wo areHispanic, testied to essentially the same set of cts e respondent's car was waved througte cecpoint but ten puled over a w minutes later by CBP agents wo indicated they werepuling te car over because tey coud smel undocumented aliens; te respondent was aesteder being seached and the ee other occupants of te car resumed teir trip to Caiia (..at 46; Tr. at 2429 2 64 4652) Te three witnesses also testied tat ey were not in a

renta car or a Hyundai Sonata wen ey were stopped, and tat tey did not now SergioGarcia" or Jess Ocoa-Toes," cts wic were listed on te Forms 23 and tecontinuation seet (Form 8) (I.. at 46; Tr at 29 404 47 5 25 60; s Ex. )

Based on these witnesses' tesimony, te Immigration udge determined at the respondent had estabised a prma fa case r suppressing the evidence arising out of an illega stop (..at 7) As noted by te Immigration Judge, stopping a veice is justied when e ocer isawe of articuae cts that reasonably waant sspicion tat a veicle contains alienswho may be ilegally in the United Sates ( at 6 (citing and uoting Unt tats v. BrgnonPon 422 U.S 87 884 (975))); s also onzalzRvra v I 22 F.3d 44 445 (9 Cir994) Stopping a car soey because te inabitants are Hispanic is not a sucient reason to

suspect a person of being an ilega alien ( at 7) Unt tats v BrgnonPon supraat 88687; onzalzRvra v I supra at 44748 We nd no cear error in te ImmigrationJudges deteination tat the respondent's winesses testied crediby and tat, based on teir testimony indicating that te car was stopped soley because CBP ocers smeed"undocuented aiens, te respondent as establised a prma fa case of ilegality Therere,te burden of proof sis to e HS to justi te manner in wich it obtained te Forms 2and 8 Matr of Barnas supra

Te Immigration udge und that te HS was unable to justi te manner in whic it obtained the Fo 2 and the continuation sheet, Fo -3, because te inationcontained terein, including that te CBP agents stopped a rented Hyundai Sonaa driven by

Sergio Garcia wit an occupant named Jesus Ocoa-Toes, was incorect te ImmigrationJudge und tis evidence uneiabe in te ce of te respondent's witness credibe testimony,and, erere, inadmissibe (J at 78) d at 6 The HS did not oer any other evidence besides the Foms 2 and I (J at ) he Imigration Judge reected theDHS's argument that it was denied an opportunity to uestion te respondent at the suppressionhearing (.. at 8) Wie te respondent did not testi, te DHS was ee to ca the respondent as its own witness and did not do so (I. at 8; s Tr. at 920) As te DHS did not present evidence to justi stoping and aesting te respondent, te mmigration Judge und te stopiega d suppressed a evidence obtained om the stop (ie, the Fos 2 and 8) (.at )

2




A087 534 842

he migratin Judge as und that the HS had iled t establish at te respndent was reable as charged thrugh eidence btained by independent means J at 8-1 ) Hoons/apa v I 575 F2d 735 738 9th Cir 978) mo by 586 F2d 755 9th Cir 1978)hlding that a Furth Aendent ilatin des nt require exclusin f eidenceindependently btained agency adminisatie recrds); Mattr of anoval 17 &N Dec70 79 BA 979) Altugh the HS subitted the respndents chldrens birt certicatesshwing the respndents place f bih as Mexic, the igratin Judge und is eidencecud nt be relied n since he eidence wa btained by expliting the prir ilegal seach andseiure J at 9) ug te respndent subitted is cildrens bi ceicates untarily,the miatin Judge und hat he did s in rder t be released an illega detentinresulting the iegal stp; therere, te HS had nt shwn that interening circustancesexisted between he illegal stp and the bnd prceedings such tat e bih certicates wereattenuated the uncnstitutinal stp and aest J at 9-10 citing Unt tats v PrzEsparza 609 F2d 284, 1289 9t Cir 979))) Wong un v Unt tats 371 US 471,48788 963) stating that cnsideratin f eidence btained bt directly and indirectly cnduct that iated the Fuh Aendent is baed by peratin f the exclusinay le)

he iatin Judge als nd the DHSs subissin f a printut m the MexicanNatinal Ppulatin Regisy CURP) Exh 8A) inadissibe because it laced authenticatinand culd nt be relied n as the sle eidence t estabis the respndents alienage, particularlywere the ny indicatin that the dcuent refered t te respndent was his name J at 011 ) Te gratin udge cncluded that it is pssible that several pepe culd hae te samename in a cuntry a ppuus Mexic J at 1) Wile the CU wuld be prbatie incrrbratin with ter eidence, he migratin Judge deeed it eiabe standing alneJ at 11) The migratin Judge declined t cnsider any additinal eidence te HSsubitted aer he suppressin hearing because it had made clea that te recrd wuld clseaer that heaing; te DHS had been put n ntice that the burden f prf wud shi t it iftherespndent established prma fa eidence f a cnstitutinal iatin and te DHS did nt meet its burden f rebutting te eidence J at ; s Tr at 8, 64-65) herere, theprceedings were teinated J at 12)

On appeal the DHS asserts that the igratin Judge eed in clsing the eidentiaryrecrd imediatey lwing the March 4, 20, suppressin earing DHSs Br at 3) TheDHS agues that it culd nt hae reseen that it wuld be required t denstate aienage andremability during a suppressin earing; since the igratin udge did nt mae te ndingtat the respndent had established prma fa eidence f an egregius Fur Amendent ilatin until alst tw mnths aer the March 4 201, suppressin hearing the buden fdispring a Furh Amendment ilatin r f priding her independent eidence t eet the burden establising te respndents reability did nt si t the DHS unti June 2,20, when the migratin Judge issued his decisin DHSs Br at 1) Therere, the HSassers that it was nir t cse te hearing n March 4, 20 withut priding the DHS anadditina pprnity t pride eidence aer it had assessed the respndents initia eidencealleging a Fuh Aendment iatin HS s Br at 67)

Hweer, a nted by the iatin Judge, nce the respndent ade a pima cieshwing that a Furh Amendment ilatin had ccred, the burden shied t the DHS t rebut

3




A087 5 4 842

te espondent's clam and estas te adssity of evidence (.J at ) Te ImatonJude made clear tat pon earn te evdence to support te moton to sppress e wouldeter ant and teate poceedns o deny te motion and set te cae r a mert ean (Tr. at 6 8 6465 I.J. at ) Te ct tat some cases ave mtiple earns on te isses ofalenae emovaty and relef does not eque tat tere e ultple ears as suestedy te HS (DHS's B at s Respondent's Br at 79 2) In ts case te mmratonJude ead evidence o te ssue of wether to suppess evdece wc e made clear coudesult n termnation of te poceedis f te espondent met s burden of proof Te HS waiven a opportunty to present ts evdence reutta and teee we nd no eor n teImmration Jude's decson.

Te DHS also arues tat te mirato ude eed in termnati poceedns ecause it presented clear and convinci depedent evdece tat the respodet s an aen (DHS's Bat 7) Accodn to te HS the mation Jude sould ave drawn a neatve nfeeceo te respondents esa to test ad eed not consdern te respodents oter'stestmony tat the respondent was o n Mexco (DHSs B at 89 s Tr at 626) In

additon te HS asserts tat ote evdence t sumitted also cooorated te espondent'salienae ncudn a USCS Cetra Index Syste (CS") prntout ndcatn tat theespondent wa ssued a nonmant vsa n Mexco and tat s couny of rth andctzesp wa Mexco (DHS's B at 20) A document otaned o the Unted StatesDepartent of State Beau of Consua Aas te sustantated ts inaton (DHS'sB at 202) Fnaly te HS sumtted copies of te espodet's ad s cden's rtcetcates all of wc estas tat te espondent was o n Mexco (DHS's B at 222)

As aeady noted we do not d eror te Imraton Jude's esa to consder addtona evdece sued suseqent to te Mac 4 20 suppesson ear iscluded te USCS Cental ndex System pntout and te Departet of State document

We are not persuaded tat the respondent's lack of testoy provdes an ndependent asr ndi removale We te maton Jude ay draw a neative inrence om anaen's slence deporton poceeds e s not reured to do so (s Respodents Br. at (ct Mattr uvara 20 I&N Dec 28 24 (BA 990)) As noted in Mattr uvara supra at 242 an alen wo emans sent ae ein conoted wt evdence of alenae ads poteta depotal may leave msef open to advese nences wc may lead to a d of depotalty Unt tats x rl Bloums o 26 US 49 5455( 92) Un tats lrtDras 74 F2d 645 647 (9 C. 984) (statn that n a deportation earn there s no proton aanst dawn an advese nence wen a pettoner invokes is Amedment t aanst sefncimnaton) Te case at and

pesents a deent set of cts wee lea evdence as een sumitted and otaned touan leal sezure of he espondent e uden of poof no loner lies wit te respondent andtee wa no equemen at e take te stad ode to test aut s aenae At atethe respondent did not nvoke s t aainst selfincimnaton ee as ces dscuss wete to draw a neatve nence om an alen's sece Te Imiaton Judeade clear tat ot te espodet and e DHS coud preset evdence at te Marc 4 20 earn and te DHS dd not cal te espondent to testi In oter wods te espondet ddnot rese o test so uc e wa smply not questoned y eite s attoey o opposn couse.

4




A087 534 842

However we n it necessary to reman in orer to cari wether te responentsrothers testimony was consiere nasmch as it appears to evience of aienage wic isinepenent of te evience n inamissie ecase of the naw stop Wong un

I supra at 487-88 We nee not ho that a evience is frit of the poisonos ee simpyecase it wo not have come to ight t r te iegal actions of te poice Rather te moreapt qestion in sch a case is whether granting estaisment of te primary iegaity theevience to wic instant ojection is mae as een come at expoitation of tat iegaity or instea means scienty istingishae to e prge of te pimary taint") s also Unit tats Colini 435 US 268 275 1978) hoing that te testimony of a tir party witnesswose ientity was iscovere as a rest of the Fort Amenment vioation may e amissiewhere the iscovery of the wtness is sciently attenate om te tant of te constttonavioation) Accoringy te owing orer wil e entere

OER he recor of proceeings is remane r er proceeings consistent with this

orer




ITD STATS DPARTT OF JSTICXCTIV OFFI FOR IIGRATIO RVIW

IIGRATIO CORT200 AST ITCH DRIV, SIT 200

PHOIX AZOA 85012

I TH MATTR OF

OTOGARCA, Ei

Rsd

O half f h Rsdo D aw, EsLaw Oc of aw & Gold1536 Womas RoadPoix, A 8515

I RMOA PROCDIGS

FI O: A87534842

DAT:i

O half f h GvRd All, EsAssistat Cif CousDptmt of Homad cuity235 Not Ctal AvPoix, Aizoa 854

ORDR AD DCISIO OF TH IMMIGRATIO CORT

I Pcdural Hisy

O Octob 28, 29, th Dpamt of Homad Scity (DH") issud a Notic toAppa (T A"), cagig t spodt as subjct to moval om t nitd Stats psuat tosctio 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of th Immigatio ad Natioality Act (t Act"), as add, as a alipst i th Uitd tats withot big admittd o paold, o wo as aivd i t Unitdtats at ay tim o pac ot ta as dsigatd by t Attoy Gal [Ex 1] I suppot oftis cag, D algd tat th spod ( 1) is ot a citiz o atioal of t Uitd tats (2)is a ativ ad citiz of Mxico (3) aivd i t itd tats at o a E Paso, Txas, o o about Mach 26, 22 ad (4) was ot t admittd o paod a ispctio by an mmigatioOc

O Mac 3, 21, th spodt ld a Motio to uppss Evidc ad Tmiat tPocdigs pcicay, th spodt ptitiod th Cout to sppss t o I23, Rcod ofDpoabadmssb , d a sams ad b spod o H bcas tvidc was obtaid as a st of ggios violatios of t spodts 4th Amdmt igts" [Ex 2A at 3] Th spodt caims that all vidc suc as bit cticat o ot vidc of aiag wic D may sk to o i this cas is taitd as it of t poisoos



SOTOGARCAA08-534-842

tee." I On ay, 20, 2010, DHS ed ts opposton to the espondent's motons to suppess antemnate poceedngs, togethe wth a submsson of evdece, whch ncued the o I-213 a

bth cetcates the espodent's two chden. Ex. 3 O uly 22, 2010, the espondentsubmtted a esponse to the DHS opposton Ex. 4] On Novembe 2, 2010, the Cot oeed a lsuppesson heng, set ach 14, 2011 Ex. 6]

On Febuay 14, 2011, DHS submtte a moton extenson of tme to submt addtonaevdence n suppot of ts be whch the espondent opposed. [Ex. 7 A O ebuay 28, 2011, theCout gante DHS' moton extenson of tme. Id Ae the suppesso heang, DHSsubmtte anothe moton to extend tme, whch was dened by the Cout o Apl 12, 2011. OnApl 2, 201, the espondent ed a memoadum suppot of hs posto. O Apl 4, 2011,DHS ed ts statement of poston

II. Statement of aw

DHS beas the buden of povng, by clea, convncng, ad unequvocal evdence, that theespondent s emovabe as chaged ee Wooby I 385 U.S. 276 966). As a pat of tsbuden, the govement must pove aenage' . e., that the subect of the poceedg s an aen."Iran I 656 F .2d 469, 471 9th C. 1981 ). he espondent agues that a evdence obtaneddung the aeged llega stop by Unte States Customs and Bode Potecto CBP") shoud besuppessed because t was obtaned n volaton of s ghts unde the outh Amendment of theUnted States Consttuton The espondent aso agues that the poceedngs shoud be teatedbecause, f ths evdence s excluded, the goveent canot meet ts buden of estabshng

emovablty as chaged

he geeal ue a rmnal poceedng s that statemets and othe evdece obtaned as aesult of a unlawl, waatess aest ae suppessbe f the nk betwee the evdece ad theunawl conduct s not too attenuated" I LopezMenoza 468 U.S. 1032, 1040-41 1984)emphass added). he outh Amendment appes to all sezues of the peson, cludg sezesthat nvove ony a bef detenton shot of tadtona aest" Unte tates BrgnonPone 422U.S. 873, 878 975). [An ntay consensual encoute betwee a poce oce and a ctzen cbe tansed nto a sezue o detenton wthn the meag of the outh Amendment, f, vewof all the ccumstances suoundng the ncdent a easonable peson woud have beeved that hewas not ee to leave. I Delgao 466 .S. 210, 215 1984) quotng Unte tates

Menenhall 446 .S 544, 554 1980)) Exampes of ccumstances that mght dcate a sezue,even wee the peson dd not attempt to leave woud be the theatenng pesence of seveal oces,the spay of a weapon by an oce, oe physca ouch of the peson of the ctzen, o the ueof anguage o tone of voce ndcatng that compance wth the oce's equest mght becompeled" I see aso erry ho 392 .S 16 1968) [W]heneve a poce oce accostsan ndvdua and estans hs eedom to wak away, he has sezed' that peson."). In the abseceof some such evdence, othewse noensve contact between a membe of the pubc an the poce

2



SOTO-GARCIAA087534842

cnnot as a mat of law amount to a szu of that pson" Mnnha 446 .S. at 555.

Onc an ndvdual has bn szd" th Cout must dtn whth th oc's actonwas ustd at ts ncpton and whth t was asonaby atd n scop to th ccumstacswhch ustd th ntnc n th st pac." r 392 .S. at 20. n dtng whth thscop of th oc's actons w asonab w consd whth th cts avalabl to th oc at th momnt of th szu o th sach waant a man of asonabl cauton n th bl that thacton takn was appopat." r 392 S. at 21. h szu must aways b ootd n somsubstanta bass n addton to th subct's appaanc o nam." rhorhagh 38 3d at 498W]hn alng wth an unasonab stop basd solly on a pson• s ac o thnc th qustonof whth an agnt's conduct consttuts a bad th voaton only ass onc t has alady bnstabshd that th stop was basd solly on ac." onzazRvra 22 .3d at 1450 n.8.

Immgaton pocdngs a not bound by stct uls of vdnc Baza v. I 709 .2d1231 1233 (9th C. 1983); s aso rasHrnanz v / 528 2d 366 369 (9th C. 1975)(Hasay s admssbl n admnstatv pocdngs whch nd not stctly ow convntonalvdnc us.") Mattr of Barnas 19 I&N Dc 609 611 (BIA 1988). n mmgatonpocdngs vdnc must b pobatv and ts admsson must b ndamntaly " so as not todpv th ndvdual of du pocss of law. Baza 709 .2d at 1233; Mattr of oro 17 &NDc 340 343 (BA 1980). Th Cout may cv n vdnc ay oa o wttn statmnt whchs matal and vant to any ssu n th cas pvously mad by th spondnt o ay oth pson dung any nvstgaton xamnaton hang o ta.'' 8 C..R. § 1240.7(a). Ths outhAmndmnt xclusona u" dos not gnally appy n mmgaton pocdngs. at

1050-51; Mattr of anova 17 &N Dc. 70 (BIA 1979). Accodng to th Nnth Ccut howv ggous ouh Amndmnt volatons do waant th applcaton of th xcusonay u nmmgaton pocdngs. onzazRvra v I 22 .3d 1441 1448 (9th C. 1994). Und

Nnth Ccut aw a bad th consttutonal voaton occus whn vdnc s obtand bydlbat voatons of th uth amndmnt o by conduct a asonab oc shoud hav kos n volaton of th Consttuton.

I at 1449 (quotng amson v CIR 745 2d 541, 545 (9th

C. 1984)) A] ndamntay un outh Amndmnt voaton s consdd ggousgalss of th pobatv vau of th vdnc obtand." I at 1451

Smay th Boad of Immgaton Appals (th Boad") has hd that:

vdnc sultng om a sach nd szu n voaton of uth amndmnt ghtss not that ason alon xcludabl om cv dpotaton pocdngs. Evuh amnmnt voaton w not o nssty sut n nng that th

I In Lopz-Mndoz, the Supreme Cour limited its holding to situations that do not involve "eggious violations of Fouth Amendment o other liberties that might transgress notions of ndamental faiess and undeine the proativevalue of the evidence obtained. LopzMndoz 468 US at 1050-5

3



SOTOGARCIAA087534842

admission of resuting evidene is ndamentally uir.

Mattr of Toro 17 I&N De. at 343 (inteal itations omitted). The use of admissions obtainedom a respondent invountariy to estabish deportabiiy s ndamentally uir." Mattr of Ramirzanhz 17 I&N De. 503 505 (BIA 1980).

When a respondent laims that evidene was obtained in vioation of due proess the burdenis on the respondent to estabish a prima ie ase of illegaliy adavit aone is not suientto meet this burden; therere the respondent's aims must aso be suppoted by testimony.Barnas 19 &N De. at 61112. Satements in a motio r suppression must be spei anddeaed. They should not be genera onusory or based on oneture. They must be based onpersona knowedge. They must set rth a prima ie ase. The artiles to be suppressed must beenumerated." Mattr of Wong 13 &N De. at 822. If he respondent estabishes a pma ie aseDHS wi be aed upon to assume the burden of ustiing the manner in whh it obtained itseviene Mar of Burgos 15 I&N De. 278 279 (BIA 1975); s aso Mattr of Wong 13 I&NDe. 820 (BA 1971); Mattr of Tang 13 I&N De. 691 (BIA 1971).

III Anass

The respondent aims that he was unawfuy stopped detained and plaed in removaproeedings onstituting an egregious violation of his onstitutiona rights As a resut of therespondent's arrest DHS obtained evidene regarding the respondents aienage. Aording to therespondent these items of evidene should be exluded as fuit of the poisonous tree"

gnray Wong unv.

Unt tats 371 U.S 471 (1963)

In support of his motion the respondent oered the testimony of the other oupants i thea Vitor Rentera Jesus Soto and Vitor Saavedra at the suppression heang o Apri 12 2011Their testimony will be summarized beow.

A Testmon

Vitor Renteia testied rst. He is a Hispani mae and a resident of Venura Caiia.He is a iend of the respondent and Jesus Soto and he is the brotherinaw of Vitor Saavedra. Renteria had gone to Houston with his unle and asked r. Soto r a ride bak to Caiia om

Avondae Arizona beause it was heaper than taking the bus. He testied that he r. Soto r.Saavedra and the respondent le in r. Soto's tuk a urdoor white Toyota Taoma at aroud8 pm. near the en o oer. Mr. oto rove wesou on he Inerstae I 0 out o PhoenArizona. He stated that nohing unusua happened as they drove through Aizona. At the AizonaCaliia border the tuk stopped at the inspetion station in a norma fashion. The inspetorspeered inside and waved them through the hekpoint. He sated that no one i he vehile ateunusual and that the uk merged bak onto the highway in an ordina maner. ou or ve

4




miutes later, he otied ashig lights behid them Mr Soto puled oer i a ormal shio byputtig his sigal o ad megig oto the right side of the road Aer the ar pulled to he side of

the oad, to CBP agets approahed the ehile o the passeger side Mr Reteria seated thebak of the ar, o the passeger side As the oers approahed, Mr Retera rolled o the ar ido ad asked the agets hy they stopped the ehile Oe of the agets espoed asmell he thee are udoumeted people i the ar That's hat get paid r The agets theasked the me to step out of the ar patted the me do seahed the tuk ith aie assistae,ad arrested the respodet The remaiig three me esumed their trip M Reteia testied thato that date he as etai that they ere eer i a etal ar, or i a Hyudai Soata a hat hedid ot ko Sergio Garia" or Jesus Ohoa-Tores"

Vitor Saaedra testied ext He is a Hispai male ad a residet of Aurora, Colorao

Peious to liig i Aurora he lied i Aodale, Arizoa, ad pior to that, Vetura, CaliiaHe is a ied of the respodet ad Jesus Soto, ad he is the brotherila of Vitor Retera MrSaaera as headed to Vetura to pik up his the-ae o ife a moe to Aodae Heasked Mr Soto r assistae beause Mr Soto oed a hite ur-door issa otier ith ahith Mr Saaedra plaed to haul a traile om Vetura to Aodale th Mr Soto's help HeMr Soto, M Reteria ad the respodet le om Aodale at aroud 8:30 pm o Otober28 or 29 Mr Soto droe estboud o the terstate 0 Mr Saaera as seated i he bak seat o edrier's side behid Mr Soto He stated that othig uusual happee as ey droe thoughArizoa At the Arizoa-Caliia border, their ehile stopped at the ispetio statio, psedthrough ithout iidet, ad merged bak oto the highay i a ordiary mae our or emiutes later, he otied ashig lights behid them ad M Soto pulled oer As the CBP agets

approahed the ehile, Mr Reteria asked hy the ehile had bee stoppe Oe of the agetsespoded, a smell it ad get paid to ko he there are udoumeted peope i the arThe agets ordered the me to step out the a ad empty their pokets, searhed the ruk seealtimes ith aie assistae ad arrested the respodet The remaiig me resumed their tripHe testied that o that date he as etai that they ere eer i a retal ar or i a HyudaiSoata ad that he did ot ko Segio Gaia" or Jesus OhoaTores

Jesus Soto as the al itess ad testied o the stad ith the aid of a Spaishiterpreter He is a Hispai mae ad a esidet of Phoeix, rizoa He is the brther of herespodet ad a ied of Vitor Reteria ad Vitor Saaedra Mr Soto agreed to gie MrReteria a ride to Vetura Caliia, pik up Mr Saaedras ae i Vetura a help .

Saaeda haul a tailer om Vetura to Aodale He os a urdoo 2002 Nissa rotie, hihhe as driig o Otober 24 2009 He testied that he Mr Reteria . Saera, a therespoet e om hoei Aizo heae esbou o he terste 0 e sate hatothig uusua happeed as they droe through Arizoa At the izoa-Caliia border ispetio statio he stopped i a ordiry maer ad rolled do his ido Aer theispetors aed the ehile through he rolled up his idos ad meged oto the highay i aoa fashio our or e miutes later Mr Soto otied thee as a ar behid him, so he



SOTOGARCIAA087-534842

chged es to llow the cr to pss The c chged es wel, d put its ights o r. Sotothe pued ove to the ight side of the od to stop, d roed dow the widows The getspproched o the pssege side of the truck d itructed him to t o his c which he did.The rst thig the gets sked ws if thee ws yoe i the cr tht did ot hve docume Hetestied tht r Rete the hd covestio with the get, which he did ot uderstdbecuse it ws i Egish. He te leed om r Reteri tht the ocer hd told him ht hecoud smell udocumeted peope i the c The gets sked l of the me heir documetsd to empty out thei pockets The respodet ws ested d the est of the me esumed ei tip He testied tht he hs ever bee i Hyudi Sot He lso stted tht o othe occsio, he dove retl c to Clii, but ot i October 2009 He did ot kow SergioGci" o Jesus OchoToes"

B. Prima Facie Case of Iega

The respodet h set h prma fae ce of ilegity r the motio r suppessioAt the evidetiy heig, the espodet submited three cedible d cosistet testimoilccouts of the stop by CBP. The oy sigict discrepcy ws . Retes testimoy tht hevehicle ws Toyot Tcom Neverheless, . Reteri testied tht the vehice ws white urdoor pickup tuck d coceded tht he might ot hve reced the exct mke d mode of rSotos cr

Ude Nith Circuit lw, bd ith viotios of idividus urth medmetights e cosidered suciety eegious to equie ppictio of the excusio sctio

civi poceedig onzalezRvera v I 22 F3d 44, 449 (9th Cir 994) (quotigamson v CIR 4 F2d 4, 4 (9th Ci 984)) Ude Nith Circuit w, bd ihcostiutio viotio occurs whe evidece is obtied by deiberte viotios of he uhmedmet, o by coduct esoble ocer shoud hve kow is i viotio of theCostitutio" I Whethe resobe oce shoud hve kow his coduct vioted theCostitutio depeds i prt o whehe the costitutio right w cery esbished i thtprticu cotext t issue I t 40 (hodig tht eoble ocer should hve kow stopbsed soey o pesos Hispic ppece ws ucostitutiol becuse he [stop occuedlog e the Supeme Cou . mde cle tht the Costitutio does ot permit such stops") TheFourth Amedmet ows oces o rovig ptro stop vehices oy if they re wre of specicrticuble cts togethe with tiol ifereces om these cts, tht resoby wart suspicio

tht he vehicles coti lies who my be iegy i the couty." Unte tates v BrgnonPone 422 US. 873 884 (9)

At the se time, i deteiig whether pticu stop by the Borde Pto hs met theesobe suspicio test, it is cruci tht the iculble cts rmig the bsis of esoblesuspicio be] mesued gist objective esoble m stdrd, ot by he subjectiveimpressios of prticu oce ao v I 9 F.2d 00, 03 (9h Cir 986) he




iaio court explaed, a permssbe deductos' ... or ratoal reces' must ow omobjectve cts ad be capabe of ratoal explaato Whe a ocer may evaluae the cts

suppotg reasoable suspco lght of hs experece, experece may ot be used to gve heocers ubrded dscreo makg a stop" at 705 I other words, a ocers experecemay sh the backgroud agast whch the reevat cts re to be ssessed, as og as thefereces he draws are objectvey reasoabe, but experece does ot tsef serve as adepedet ctor the reasoable suspco aayss" Unit tats v Montro-Camargo 208F3d 22, 13 (9th Cr. 2000)

The respodet clams that he was stopped because of hs Hspac appearace, whch wouldcostute an egregous volato of the Fourth Amedmet f te. [Ex. 2A at 5] The occupats the vehce cosstetly d credby tested that whe aked why he stopped the respodes

vehcle, the CBP aget respoded t was because he coud smell udocumeted peope the car."Cosdeg that CBP agets were llowg the respodet a vehcle hat both vehcles weremovg, ad that udocumeted peope do ot have ay easy detable scet, hs caot becosdered a artculabe ct or a ratoal rece that rmed he bss r reasoable suspco.The agets statemet was udoubtedly approprate gve the suato, ad possbly a racst

satemet about udocumeed people geeral. The Nth Crcut emphszed tha a]s a atowe have acted decsvely to remove all vestges of raca dscrmato om our ves and that] ]o r a momet wll we toerate racst behavor" Frazr v Unit tats 18 F 3d 778, 785 (9hCr. 994) Therere, he Court ds that the testmoal evdece submted by the respodety suppors the respodet's adavt submted r suppresso

The Court ds that the respodet has estabshed a rima fai case r suppressg heevdece asg out of a llega stop The brde therere shs to DHS to ust the maer whch t obaed ts evdece Mar of Burgos 15 &N Dec278, 279 (B 975) s aso Mar of Wong 13 &N ec 820 (BA 97 ); Mar of ang 3 & Dec. 9 (BIA 1971 ).

C. DUS Burden to Justify Manner of Obtaining Evidence

Oce the respodet estabshes rma fai case, DHS bears the burde of ustg themaer whch t obtaed ts evdece Mattr of Barnas 19 &N Dec at 1 (BIA 1988) Atthe cosg of the record, the oly documet DHS submtted spport of s posto was the Fom83, a cotuato page of the For 231 The Fo -831 cotas CBPs wrtte accoun of the

stop

The Cou cn rel e r 83 because the rato coaed wh wascorect, makg t nherety urelable ad thus ot dmetlly r The sole test r admsso of evdece mmgrato cour s whether the evdece s probatve and ts admsso sdmeally r riasHanz v I 528 F 2d 3 39 (9th Cr 975). The Form 831 ths case apeas o documet a completely searate ecounter Accordg to t, the CBP agets

7



SOTO-GARCIAA087-534842

stopped a reted urdoor ta 2009 Hyuda Soata" wc s a seda ot a truck dve by aSergo Garca." Te agets te detaed all ur occupats cudg a Jesus OcoaTorres"

However accordg to te cosstet ad credbe testmoy o the wtesses eter o tese mewere preset e vece ad oly oe perso te respodet was detaed by CBP o te day questo Terere as te Fo 1-83 obvousy cotas correct mato t s uelable adot dametally r ad s terere admssble

HS as ot provded ay oter evdece justg te maer wc t obtaed tsevdece cudg attemptg to oer te testmoy o the ocers volved te stop or therespodet HS argues t was deed a opportu to ca te respodet at e suppressoearg but ts s corect At te arc 4 20, earg te Cour explaed tat terespodet coud call s wtesses ay order ad ever deed HS a opporuty to ca therespodet as ts ow wtess to rebut the prima facicase r suppresso. I ct te Court madet cear multple tmes durg te suppresso earg tat all evdece sould be preseted at teearg ad tat te Court would subsequetly ssue a wrtte decso suppressg e evdece adtermatg te proceedgs or sustag te charge ad proceedg to determe egble rms o ree

Terere HS as led to meet ts bude to just te maer wc t obtaed tsevdece ad all evdece tat t obtaed as a result o te llega stop wll be suppressed. ostobvousy ts w clude te Foms 1-23 83, completed mmedatey aer he respodetwas detaed

D Independently Obtained Evdence f Alienage

Te Court has ud a Fout Amedmet volato ts case ad therere w suppressal evdece obtaed as a result o the arrest or as ut o te posoous tree." Te rut o teposoous tree doctre" probts te toducto o dervatve evdece both tagble adtestmoal that s te product o the prmary evdece or that s oterwse acqured as a drectresult o te [Fourt Amedmet voato up to te pot at wc te coecto wt te[volato becomes so atteuated as to dsspate te tat. Murray v Unit Stats. 487 US 533536537 (quotg Naron v nt Stats 308 US. 33 8, 3 4 (939)) S also Wong Sun 3 7U.S 47 484485 (963) ot al evdece s ut o the posoous ee" smpy because t woudot ave come to lgt but r the legal actos o te polce" I at 488 Rater te more apt

questo such a case s wether gratg establsmet o the prmay llegalty he evdece towc stat objecto s made as bee come at by expotato o tat egalty or stead bymeas sucetly dstgushale to e purged o the pmay tat I (quotg Magurevdece o Gult 22 959)) evaluatg weter dervatve evdece as become aeuated asto dsspate the tat te Cour cosders such ctors as tempora proxmy o te volato to teprocuremet o the caeged evdece the presece o terveg crcumstaces ad teagracy o te ocal mscoduct S Brown v lnois, 422 U.S 590 603 -604 (975) Fa

8



SOTO-GARCIAA087-534-842

the pupose of the exclusioa rule is to deterto compe respect r the costittioal guarty ithe oy eectively avaiabe wayby removig the icetive to disregard it Elki v Unit

Stats 364 US 206 27 (960)

If it is estabished that evidece was idepedetly obtaied however it may ot besuppressed [Regadless of how [an arrest s eected deporatio wi still be possible weevidece ot derived directly om the aest is suciet to support deportatio LopzMnoza468 US at043 It is wel established that [the excusioary rule has o appicatio where thegoveet eed of the evidece om a idepedet souce' Hece oce te respodet asbee placed i depotatio proceedigs any evidece which is idepedetly obtaied may be reliedupo regardless of the aeged iega arrest Mattr of Crvants 21 &N ec 351 353 (BIA1996)

Further the body or idetiy of a dedat or respodet i a crimia or civiproceedig is ever itsef suppressible as a uit of an uawl arrest eve if it is coceded tat auaw aest search or iterrogatio occurred INS v LopzMnoza 468 US 032 1039(984); s also Mattr of Sanoval 17 I&N ec at 79 (otig tat idetity as istingish om a/nag is ot suppressible as the fruit of the poisoos tree ) Oce a aies idetity iseed the Service ca etirey avoid triggerig the excusioary ule i a cases where documetslawlly i the Service's possessio evidece ulaw presece Sice te perso ad idetityof the respodet are ot themselves suppressible the IS must prove oy aieage ad tat wisometimes be possibe usig evidece gathered idepedetly of or sucietly atteuated om theorigial aest LopzMnoza 468 US at 1043 s also Unit Stats v OrozcoRico 589 F 2d

433 435 (9th Cir 1978) ([There is o sactio to be appied whe a illegal arrest oly eads todiscovery of the ma's idetity and that merely leads to the ocia e or other idepedetevidece The le ca be used so r as relevat )

HS has submited the respodets chidres birh certicates as evidece ofhis exicaaieage because they idicate the respodets place of birt as exico [S Ex 3 Tab C HScoceded that it came ito possessio of the birth certicates whe the respodet submited themdrig bod proceedigs ad argues tat they are idepedety obtaied evidece The Cout dsthat alowig suc evidece i this removal proceedig woud be peittig HS to use evidecewhich it has come at by expoitatio of its illegality S Wong Sn 3 71 US at 488 The Cortevauates this evidece accordig to the atteuatio ctors laid out i Brown 422 US at 603604

Though the bod hearig happeed o November 7 2009 twety-ur days aer the respodetwas take ito custody the Court ds that the respodets detetio itself was illega as a directesult o te llega stop Furhemore the respodet lacke sucet ee wil submtg schidre's birt certicates at the bod earig Te Nith Circuit has sated that

ee wi i this Fourt Amedmet exclusioary rue sese meas somethig apartom voutaress or the absece of coercio i te Fih Amedmet sese The

9




ee wll" o n nculptng ennt s to be consee n lght o the twn polceseterence n jucl ntegrty o the Fourth Amenments excluson rule t s

not enough Fourth Amenment ttenuton tht the sttement be uncoece theeennts ee wll" must lso be sucent to ene npplcble the eterencen jucl ntegy puposes tht just exclung hs sttement

S PzEspaa, 09 F2 284 289 9th C 979)

n bon poceengs, poo o mll tes s cto the cout conses when etemnngwhethe to gnt bon a f Sh 7 &N Dec 77 BA 979) hough the esponentsubmtte the cetctes voluntrly" the Cout conses tht h so n oe to be eleseom n llegl etenton n theee the esponent's ee wll s not sucent to ene npplcble the eterence n jucl ntegty puposes tht just exclung" the bh

certctes PEspaa 09 F2 t 289 Becuse o ths HS hs not shown tht ntervenngccumsnces exste between the llegl stop o the esponent hs subsequent llegl etenton nthe bon poceeng Futhe S hs not gue tht the esponent's chlens brth cetcteswoul hve been nevtbly scovee" though nepenent mens S x ancaLnn92 F2 373 375 9th C 990) heee the Court ns tht the bth certctes wee notttenute to the llegl stop n etenton o the esponent

Fnlly the Court lso notes tht cl scmnton s pcully gnt kn o oclmsconuct he esponent hs estblshe, n the bsence o goveent justcton tht he stopws cebse As the Nnth Ccut stte [w]e hve long egre cl oppesson s one o the most serous thets to ou noton o nmentl ess n conse elnce on the use o rceo ethncty s shothn lkely llegl conuct to be epugnnt une ny ccumstnces"GnalRa 22 F3 t 44 Due to the gntly llegl ntue o stoppng the esponentbse on hs n hs ellow pssenges Hspnc ppences the Cout ns the esponentschlens brth cetctes wrnt excluson to ete tue tnsgessons Accongly the Coutwll suppess the brth certctes s evtve evence tnte by the egegous volton o theesponents Fourth Amenment consttutonl ghts

Dung the suppesson heng S lso submte ocument whch ppers to be prntout om the excn Ntonl Populton Rgst CU") S x A] The ocuent lsts theesponents nme n egstton te" o Octobe , 2000 The ocument nctes tht

peson wth the esponents nme ws bo n Snlo S i .

] he ocument sttes tht the solepurpose o the CURP s the esponse o the [excn goveent to llow n spee up theexecse ctzens hts eve m vementl pceues n sevces" [See id] eesponents oey objecte t the ocument becuse t ws unuthentcte The Court geeso be mssble n mmgton prceengs evence must be pobtve n ts msson must benmentlly " so s not to epve the nvul o ue pocess o lw S Balia, 709 F2t 233 a f T 7 &N Dec 340 343 BA 980) hough mmgton poceengs re

0



SGARCIAA087-534842

not bond by stict es of eidence in the Ninth Cicit oci ecods nd bic docentso ein oeents y be thenticted eithe thouh the eqieent of 8 CFR § 28

2010 o toh ny econized ocede incdin the Fede Res of Eidence Vaan v

Musy, 508 F3d 119 18283 9th Ci 200 The ethod of thentiction tht the tysbittin the eidence tiizes y ect the weiht of the eidence nd Iition desetin bod dicetion to ccet docent s thentic o not bsed on the tic ctshowin esented Id t 185

The CU docent sbitted by DHS hs not been thenticted by ny en ndccodiny the Cot nds tht it is neibe Frtheroe it hs been sbitted s soe roof of the esondents iene nd does not coobote with ny othe eidence in the ecod tht theesondent is citizen of eico C Uni Sas v. RbonD/gao, 4 F2d 1 3 9th Ci

92 ndin tht eicn oice cittion in the esondent ne ws roey dittedwithot thentiction s ein docent not s oof of the cts it ecited bt oey sn obect in ent ossession tht tended to coobote hi dision tht he hd been ineico Lsty it contins no intion identiin the esondent s the sbect of thedocent othe thn the ne niqe Soto Gci n conty s oos s eico nd eion s oos s Sino it is entiey osibe tht thee e tie indiids by this neThe Cot theee nds tht thoh this docent wod be obtie in coobotion withothe eidence withot thentiction nd stndin one it wod be ndenty ni to theesondent if it is consideed oof of iene

Finy HS es tht it shod be ien n ootnity to sbit ddition eidence to

both ebt the esondent cis of n eeios Forth Aendent iotion nd to estbishiene thoh indeendent ens The bden howee shied to DHS t the sessionhein ch ike y hein whee the bdens of oof cn shi tie ties din onehein DHS hd the ootnity to ebt the esondents cis nd estbish iene din thehein n the Cots ode ntin the session hein he Co t DHS on notice tht thebden wod shi to it e the esondent estbished imaaci cse session S t 5 The Cort so de it ce to DHS din the session hein tht the ecod wscosed t the end of the hein nd it wod not be be to sbit ddition eidence Theee the Cort wi not conside ny eidence sbitted by DHS fte the session hein incdinthe esondents birth certicte nd othe docents sbitted with DS otherin stteent

of osition

II. Concsion

The Cot nds tht thee ws n eeio Foth Aendent iotion in this cse nd thtDHS ied to sti the nne in which the contested eidence ws obtined Accodiny theconteted ieces of eidence wi be sessed The Cot so nds tht S hs ied to oeesondents iene with eidence obtined thoh indeendent en The Cot hs nd tht

1




llegios ( I ) 2 e o susie le oiig uequiol eiee heee i o susi he hge o eoili ue seio 22(A(i o he A See

ooby INS, 385 .S 27 ( 9

Aoig he owig oes shll e eee

ORDERS: IT IS ORDERED THAT he espoes oio osupess is GRANTED

IT IS FRTHER ORDERD THAT llegios I ) 2i he NT A e o susie e oiig uequiol eiee

T IS FRTHER ORDERED THAT he hge oeoili is o susie usu o seio22(Ai o he A

IT IS FINALLY ORERED THAT he espoesoio o eie poeeigs is GRATED

JUN - 2 011

Date o W. RichadsonS Immigation Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICESERVICE BY esol Seie TO �HS Alie �lies AoeDate b- �/ g/'- (Cou S

2

Documents

Enrique Soto-Garcia, A087 534 842 (BIA May 7, 2013)