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.
Jose Manuel LUEVANO BENITEZ, aka Jose Manuel Benitez Luevano, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
Jose Manuel Luevano Benitez (“Luevano”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal and denial of his motion to suppress. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
The BIA did not err in concluding that the evidence of Luevano’s alienage that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) obtained during the raid of Sun Valley Floral Farms was not obtained in violation of Luevano’s constitutional rights or any laws or regulations. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Luevano was not seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when he was questioned during the raid. See I.N.S. v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 220, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984). Through their consensual interactions with Luevano, ICE agents developed the “reasonable suspicion” necessary to seize him and further investigate his immigration status. See Orhorhaghe v. I.N.S., 38 F.3d 488, 497 (9th Cir. 1994). Thus, Luevano’s Fourth Amendment claims fail. Moreover, although Luevano claims the BIA failed to address his Fifth Amendment claim, the BIA concluded that the conditions under which Luevano was seized and questioned were not sufficiently coercive that admitting the Form I-213 would violate his Fifth Amendment rights. Substantial evidence supports this conclusion. Cf. Choy v. Barber, 279 F.2d 642, 646–47 (9th Cir. 1960).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Thank you for your feedback!
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. 13-73180
Decided: August 13, 2019
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)