Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Cesar Omar CHAVEZ-JUAREZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
Cesar Omar Chavez-Juarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision finding him removable and denying his motion to suppress evidence and terminate proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress, and claims of constitutional violations. Martinez-Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029, 1033 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in denying Chavez-Juarez’s motion to suppress evidence and terminate proceedings. Chavez-Juarez failed to demonstrate the evidence obtained from the search of his home, his identity, was obtained as the result of an egregious constitutional violation. See Lopez-Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 1012, 1016–18 (9th Cir. 2008) (reasoning that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, which does not generally apply in deportation proceedings, requires administrative tribunals to exclude evidence that was obtained by a deliberate violation of the Fourth Amendment or by conduct a reasonable officer should have known is in violation of the Constitution) (citing Gonzalez-Rivera v. I.N.S., 22 F.3d 1441, 1449 (9th Cir. 1994) ). Rather, the record supports the agency’s determination that Chavez-Juarez consented to the immigration officers’ search of his home, and consented to speak with the officers.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 14-71635
Decided: August 15, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)