Ivan Velazco Castellano, A205 056 436 (BIA March 8, 2016)

8/19/2019 Ivan Velazco Castellano, A205 056 436 (BIA March 8, 2016)

1/14

Hilts, Murray David

U.S Department of Justice

Executive Oce r Immgration Reew

Board of Immigraton ApealsOce of he Cerk

5107 Leesburg Pike. Sut 2000Fl Chrc Vgma 22041

LAW OFFICES OF MURRAY D. LTS3020 Meade venue

DHS/CE Office of Chie Counsel - SND880 Fron S. Room 2246San Diego A 921018834

San Diego CA, C 92116

Name: VELAZC CASTELANO, VAN A 205-056436

Date of this notice 3/8/2016

ncosed s a copy of the Boad's decson and order n the aboe-rerenced cae.

cosure

Panel Members:Wdtd, Lid S.uy, RogO'Ho, g

Sincerel,

DO CDonna Car

Ch Cek

Usea Dock

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visitwww.irac.net/unpublished/index/

I m m i g r a n t & R e f

u g e e A p p e l l a t e C e n

t e r , L L C| w w w . i r a c . n e t

Cite as: Ivan Velazco Castellano, A205 056 436 (BIA March 8, 2016)


2/14

I�'

Executive Oce r Iiation Review

Decision of e Bord of Iiion Appeals

Fas Chrc, Virgna 22041

File: A205 056 436 S Diego, CA

I re IV A VELCO CASTLLANO

MOVAL PROCEEDGS

APPEAL

Date:

O BEHALF OF SPONDN Mura D Hils, Esquie

CHARGE:

MAR - 8 2016

oie: Se 22a(6(A)(i), I& Ac [8 USC § l 82a(6)(A(i)] - Present withou beig admited or parole

PPLCATO: Moion to suppress; teinio

The respondet appeals om he Imiaio Judge's Deeber 6, 203, deision ig him removable as harge and grig m volu epue der so 20Bb of emigration Naionalit Ac, 8 U.SC 229b he record will be remande

Uer 8 C.F.R § 1003.l d)), e Bo ders to au gs nless the are learleoneous, but i ods e novo review of ll remaiing isses iludig estio of lawjden d disreio

The Noie o Appea Fom -862 (A) aleges hat te respondet is ot a itize ornatioal of e nte Stes d ha he is a native ad itizen of Mexio, d hges him wthinadissibili er setion 22a6A(i of the At, 8 S.C. 1182(a)(Ai, s alien preset i te Unit Stes wiout adission or pole (J at 1; Ex ) I suppo of eallegatios d hage, t Dpamet of Homeland Seuri DHS le a Reor ofDepoable/Inmissible Ali Fo I-21 as evidece of ieage d removabili (. a 2xh. .

h respondent ed a motion o suppress evidee (i piclar, the Fo I213 th NTA) d to termnae proeeings with te mmigratio Judge, ging tat the DHS'sevidece w obained in violatio of te Fouh Amedmet o the U. Constition J. at 2;Exh 10) The HS led a brief opposig the respodent's motio to sppress d alsosbmig onion ppotng o b epnden eviene o iag xh. ab ).e Immigraion Judge nied h respodens motion to suppress ad erminate proceedings,sstined he hge of removabiliy and h respoden's rees r voldepte w eae order of remov o Mexio (J a 8; Ex. 2).

In swo laios sbmite w his moon, he responet d is ie sate at onor abou Apil 25 2012 crossed a sreet at a sop si on o and were approahed b a police ocer who idiated tha he sopped them beae h respode d his ie i noallow a vehile o pss hrogh he intersetio bere te entered IJ. at 2; Exh 0 Tabs AB)

I m m i g r a n t & R e f

u g e e A p p e l l a t e C e n




3/14

205 056 436

Acoding to the declaations, the police oce asked the espondent if he a gg membed ked is idencation .J 4-5; Ex 0, Tab A T espodet d his iende se that immigration oce ived on the scene, tled to the espondent, d too

him into custody I.J. at 2; Exh. 10, Tabs -B).

Wen a espondent challenges the legality of evidene, he o se beas e buden ofestalishing a pima cie case that the DHS's evidence was unllly obtained bee ebuden will shi to the DHS to justi the me in whic it obtaied the evidence. Mater oBarcen 19 &N De 609, 611 BIA 1988); Mater o Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 &N Dec. 503,505 BIA 1980). It is well-established th the exlusionay ule is genealy not applicable indeportion o emoval poceedings. INS Loez-Mendoza 468 U.S. 1032, 1038 1984); salso Mater of Sandova, 17 I&N Dec. 70, 77-83 BIA 1979). Te exlusionay ule ose in econtext of ciminal poceedings and equies te suppession in s poceedings of evidence

that is the it of an nl est, o of oe oci conduct which violates the FouAenment. Howeve, in / Loez-Mndoza sura, the Supeme Cou le open the possibility at the exclusiony ule might also appl in imion poceedings involving

egegious violations of Fou Amendment o othe libeties that might ansess notionsof menta ess d ndeine the pobative value of the evidence obtained." INS LoMndoza, sura at 050-51 Sbsequently, the Ni Cicuit specically held that theexlusion ue sometimes does appl in immigon poceedings, to he extent of equiing

te exclusion of evidene that has been otained as e esult of a delibeate violon of teFo mendment, o as the eslt of conduct th a easonable oce shoud he known is in violation of e Constiton. See Lope-Rodrie . Muksey, 56 F.3d 1012, 018 (9t Ci.2008), reh 'g e ba denied su nom. Lope-Rodriguz v Hoder, 560 F.3d 1098 9t Ci.2009); Orhorhaghe v INS 8 F.3d 488, 501 9 Ci. 1994)

In his motion d on appeal, the espondent contends t e stop was initiated bed on sethnic appeane Resp. . at 6-7; Resp. Mot. at 7). S Gones-Rivra v , 22 F.3d 1441,1446, 1450-52 9 Ci. 1994) holding at an agent commited eegious FourAendment violation when he stopped an alien's vehicle based solely on e aien's Hispanicappece).

We conclude that a emand is appopiate he ct-ndig d analysis egding thebasis e espondent's stop d seizue d to give e espondent an oppounity to develop the ecod as to the alegations of egegious" conduct. In nding insucient evidence at thestop was based on the espondent's enic appece, e iation Judge appes to haveelied pincipal on what the espondent indicated e police oce told him egading theeons te stop amely that the espondent and s iend did not allow a ca to pass ough

the iesection pio to cossing the seet) d the ct at e espondent's end was told secould leave .J. at 2-5). The igion Judge also und at e Fo -213 indicates th the police oe made contact wh the espondent he esult o a ote ado cal eging asuspicios peson" ad that the police oce ecogized the espondent as a gang membe.Howeve, thee ae no ndings of act egading wy te espondent was deteed to besuspicious, whee the oe ecogized the espondent as a gg membe at the me of estop, o how y such membeship would aise a easonable suspicion of ull iiationst .J. at 5 xh. 3 ).

2

I m m i g r a n t & R e f u g e e A p p e l l a t e C e n




4/14

A205 056 436

Ule Gonzales-Rivera v INS, supra, d horhaghe v INS, supra, t polce ocerdd ot test regdg e decso to stop te respodet. Fer, eve f te stop tself was

vald, te Imo Jdge dd ot addess weer polce or HS ocers ad scetaclale as r sseey eectg a seze, d e sold do so o read. Seesecto 287()(2) of te Act; see also Orhorhae v. INS, supra, at 497 (explaig at to js te seze, get mst tclate ojectve cts provdg reasoale sspco t[e sbject of the seize] was a e llegally s couy."), qotg Benitez-Menez v.IS, 760 F.2d 907, 909 (9t Cr. 95); cf Martinez-Medina v Holder, 673 F.3d 029, 037(9t Cr. 20) (dg o eregos volato were ser ew t ales were lawlly preset e Uted Ses y vrte of er acknowledget at the me he seized e).

We ote t the record cots a Defeed Acto r Cldood Arrvs (DACA)pplco ad a U.S. Vst prtot (I.J. at 2; Exs. 6, -A). I ts opposto to therespodet's moto to sppress d teate proceedngs e HS oered e U.S Vst prtot as poredly depedet evdece" of e respodets leage (E. 1 at 4). SeeI v Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 032, 039 (1984) (oldg that e body or dety of adefedt or respodet criial or cvl proceedgs s ever tself spressble as a t of ll aest, eve f t s coceded tat a ulawl rest, seac, or errogatoocced."); see also Maer of Cervantes-Torres, 2 I& Dec. 35, 353 (BIA 996) ([O]ce e respodet as ee plced deporo proceedgs, ay evdece whch s depedetlyobted may be reled po, regardless of te lleged llegl arest.").

O appeal, e respodet ppes to arge tat s DACA applcato was ot properlytetcated uder the Federal Rles of Evdece d terere cot sppor a teatvedg of depedet evdece of aleage (Resp. Br. at 4; Ex. 6). Te Io Jdge ddot ct me alteatve dng regadg depedet evdece of alege hs oradecso, d e shold cosder ts isse o red. To the extet te respode ges ore roadly tat hs DACA pplcato w mpropely admted, he sted a coutesy copy" ofs DACA applcto to evdece (Tr. t 8-9, 3; x. 6). Fer, ato proceedgs, e sole test r adsso of evdece s weter te evdece s prove d tsdmsso s detlly r." Matter of D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 458 (BIA 20). TheFederal Rles of Evdece e ot dng mgrtio proceedgs ad Iio Jdges ve broad dscreo to admt d cosder relevat d proatve evdece." (tectatos omtted); see also Matter of Velasquez, 9 &N Dec. 377, 380 (BIA 1986)([D]ocetary evdece deporo proceedgs eed ot copor wt the sct dcalrles of evdece"). Therere, we d o eor by te Imato Jdge i adtng teDACA applcto to evdece. Accordgly, te llowg order wll be etered.

ODER: Te record s remded to e gro Co r er poceedgscosstet w e reog opno a r the e o a ew ecso.

3

I m m i r a n t & R e f u

e e A p p e l l a t e C e n




5/14

U.S Depament of JusceExiv O r Iigi Riw

Fals Chuc Vgnia 22041

Fil: A205 056 436 - S igo CA

In re IVAN VELAZO ASTELLANO

DSENTG OPION Roger A. Pauly

i h Bd Ii Al

Da M AR - 8 2016

I rspecly issent would a Immon Jug's conclusion tha responen o staish a prim cie grgious violation of e Fou Anme. Fuermore eresponen's DAA application whch he sumite r rcor n of wch we cn taknisv notice see 8 .FR. § 100.(d)((iv, provids an inepnent o resblishng his linage See Tr. a 24.

Wt r

I m m i r a n t & R e f u e e A p p e l l a t e C e

n t e r , L L C| w w w . i r a c . n e t

Cite as: Ivan Velazco Castellano, A205 056 436 (BIA March 8, 2016) (Pauley, dissenting)


6/14

UID STAS DPARTMN OF JSICXECIV OFFIC FOR IMIGRAION REVW

UITD STATS IMMIGRAIO CORSAN DIO CAIFORNIA

Fe: A205-056436

In the Mate of

VA VAZCO CSTELLANO

RESPOND

))

))

Decembe 6 203

IN OVL PROCDNGS

CARGES Secton 12(a)(6)A)(i) o th Imigratio & Natonlity Ac

APPLCIOS ermiion; oluntry parre t coclusio o pocings

O BAF OF ESPODENT URAY D. HILS3020 Mea AeuSan Diego, Clior 92116

ON BHALF OF HS RHANA ISIOOSa Dego Calonia

OAL DECISION OF H IMIGRAIO JDG

Te Cot as jrsdictio i s cas y h Govret's ilig o

oce to ppear ated Aprl 25 202 wch lecs tha it was persoally sed o

he respodet o een dat Drng thes poceedgs te Cout nos that th

respondet has been repeseted y curent counsel, and through counse deied al

allegations and te cag ude Scio 22a)6)(A)() o the Imigaton & tonliy

ct

id\%!&¥ Ml. ¥ �P& m : _

I m m i g r a n t & R e

f u g e e A p p e l l a t e C e

n t e r , L L C| w w w . i r

a c . n e t


7/14

Te respondent was also proved a opportuty to e or prosecutoral

dscretio and a applcation o eferre adudicaton fr cildood arrivals coonl

reerred as DACA but bot were denied by the Deparent of Hoeland Securty

At te earin on August 28 202 te overnmet iled for -23 based

upo respondent's denial o all te alleatons and carge The respodet initialy did

ot ile ay objectio or otions in relation to te Governmet's evidence Te Cour

deeed that te respondent had abanone suc callenge an adtte te for -

213 ino te recor Te Court notes tat te respondent, tro counsel filed a late

oton for leave to file is otons to suppress an terinate and obection to te

Governets evdence Because te overnets response dd not aress

respondent's motion or leave at te earin on Deceber 6, 2013 te Court ranted

the respodets oton or � l l tose otions sua spote

In support of s otions to suppress and terinate ad is obectons to

te overents eviece, te respondet iled sworn declarations o isel a friend

ad is counsel of record (wt regard to te otio or leave to file) Respondent and

his frie clai tat on or about Aprl 25 202 after tey alleedly lawfully crossed a

street at a stop si tey were stopped by a Carlsba police alleedly for not allowi

a car to pass through te intersecton prior to etering ad crossin te street Their

declaration furter indcates tat ater an iratio ofcer arrved and taled with the

respondent, e was take ito Iigration custody

In this case te respodet troug his counsel dened all alleatons

and care The overnent as te itial burde to establis tat te respondent is

an alien tereore subject to tese proceedings See Woob v INS, 385 US 276

(1966). Te, or a care of reovability pursuant to Section 212a)6)A)(i) o te

Iiraton & Natonalty Act te respondent ust prove eiter tat he as clear and

A205056-436 2 Deceber 6, 203





8/14

conincing eidnc ha he s lawfully admted n he Uned Saes, o he is

clearly and beyod a do eied o e admed no e Ued Saes and s no

nadmssibe as chaged See 8 CF.R. 1240c)

NS . LoezMedoa 468 .S. 032 (1984) e Seme Co has

focsed decly on he admssibl o eiece esalshng idey n a case a

legal alien ojeced o his deoaon hearig solely on he gnd a he ad bee

aresed legaly ha is b INS ages k a "waa o searc he

premses [were Lope-Mendoza was arehended] o o ares ay of s occupas

The Seme Cou ha case reeced Loe-edoas agumens sag: The

body o ideny o a defenda or esoden in ciial o ci pceedigs is neer

iself suppressie as f o awul aes een i s conceded ha an awfl

ares seac or ierogaon occed" a 139 essece he Sureme Cou

declnd o hold ha he conseqeces o a ilega aes seach, o ierogaio s o

le he defedan go ee becase of he unlaess of e ares seach or

errogaon. Insead oeMendoa esalsed a a dfenda incldg s

deny s opely eore a cou in a cimnal o cil rocedng dese he iiial

llegal police acio he Nh Cici Co of Aeals has cossenly held ha

edence coceing he idey o a defendan oaned ae a legal police acon, is

o sessile as fr of he poisoos ee. US v. Garca-Beran 443 F3d 126

(9h Cr 206

n hs case, esondens eidece ais o esalis ay ouaendme iolaon we e was sopped by he Calsad police is declaaio and

s fen's decaaon ot dcae a afe hey cossed Erea Place fom

Basswood Aenue, a olice oce aoached hem. hee s no evidece a he

sop was naed ased upon he Hisac apeaance According o hs fed Ms

A20556-436 3 Dceme 6 2013

- i£e. · JQr C 4. . ... tQ ..... %@k:�®M




a c . n e t


9/14

Patoja's declaatio the police appoached them ad tod he she cold leave if she

wated to The Co ids that the espodets moto fails to distigish the case

eee espondent ad Ms Patoja ad that Ms Patoja was allowed to leave t the

police appaetly wated to qestio the espodet Athough Ms. Patojas

declaatio idcates that she s a Uted States ctize thee s no evidece peseted

that the polce ofce kew she was a Uited States citize ad theeoe wold ot

qestio he ad did ot qestion he he evidece peseted ndemnes any clam

that the stop elates to thei stats i the ited States o ay claim that it was ased

solely o the ethic appeaance

The evidece peseted also ails to estalish that the ccmstaces as

descied was not a cosesal ecote As aged by the Govement the

evidece idcates nstead, a cosesal ecote y the poice Thee is no

evidece o oce hostle eviomet o theats made o sed dg ths ecote

with the Calsad polce Accodig to the espodet's declaation this police ofice

stopped him fo cssig a steet wthot allowig a ca to ist pass thogh thetesectio po to eteig" it Fthe the poice qestioned the espondet whethe

he was a gag meme efoe poceedig to ask him fo his idetifcatio Althogh the

espodet may disagee with the oice qestiog him thee is o evidece that the

oce's motive was ased soely pon a illict one he poice may ask a peso who

has legtmately ee stopped o denticatio withot condctig a Forth Amedmet

seach o seize See Hibel v Sxth Jdicial Distict Cort o Nev Hmboldt Cot

542 US 177 185 (2004) ("i the oday cose a polce oice is ee to ask

qestos fo identicatio wthot mplcatng the Forth Amedmet"); INS v

Delado, 466 US 20, 216 (984) (iteogatio elatig to ones idetty o a eqest

o idetificato y police does ot, y itself costitte a Forth Amendmet seize.

A205-056-436 4 Deceme 6 2013





10/14z

See also US v DiazCasaeda 9 F3 116 (9h Cir 2007)

Frhermoe e Cou notes ta in e ody o respondents moion it

ndicates tat is case "ivove a rvng patrl te CBP agets were, heefore

eqired o have a probae cause to eec e stop . te CBP agents a absoutey

no prbabe cause] to unecessarily proong he sop o evenally seze [respoden]'s

person as a passeger in he vehicle . and offe [ ] as he main reason for eecting te

stop o e veicle . . ra a ed ight. See 213 . what s means is the ony rea basis

r e sop was CBP agen looking a esponde's appearance and sspecing m o

e legal This case, hereore is ohing more a a delibeate egregious

vioaton' o te Fourth Amenmen maig the oice o Appea -213 and any

proce evience thereafe n support o aienate suec o exclusio Pages 7 o 8

OBJECTIONS AND MOTIOS

These statements clealy relect hat the preset ojecios and motios

are ased on eroneos acal consideration he motio falls sot of esablisng

hat te or 23 is teree suppessibe o inamissibe. Accodigy the

respodes applcaio for sppessio must e denied

As o e respondens ojectons to the orm 213, te present motion

fails o ideiy ay erro in te or -213. Respode's declarations indcae tat the

Casad polce asked him if e were a embe of a gang o which he deed. The

form -213 indcates ta the Carlsad police, Corpoal Golanos, ade contac wih e

respoen as the esult of a roine call regadig a suspicious perso an Golaosrecogized he respode as a "docmeed gag membe There is ohig

presented at wold cal nto qeson the veacity o e inormaon in e o -213

Te otion also ailed to provide legal ahory to spport he caim that

he espondent is etitled to cofron an coss-examie he aker o e om 2 3.

A205056-436 5 Decebe 6 2013

Z ; .G




a c . n e t


11/14

The case ced i his motio Heradez-Guadarrama v Ashcrof 394 F3d 674 (9th

Cir 200) relaes o a aidavit nsead o a -2 13. The Nith Circui Cour

of Appeas has held n Cruz-Esioza NS 4 F3d 308 309 (9th Cir 1 995) that an

autheicaed orm 2 1 3 as robative on the ssue of illegal etry specifically noed

hough that the informaion on a orm 2 3 could not be presumed true he he

source of that informatio was eiher a Governmenal oicial or the subjec of the

repor or here here as evidence of urelability I his case, hoever the

inormaton in he orm -21 3 ere ot based upon extraneous evidence but rather

based o he respondents saemets made to the maker of the documet and

nformaio from olce oicers ivoled i he case Heradez-Guadarrama s,

herere iaposie n this case Furhermore the declaraos provided failed to

esablish that the informaio i the form -21 3 is ureliable under Cruz-Esinoza v INS

sura the form -21 3 is thereore properly admissible because it is probative on the

issue of removabiity ad is fair abset evdence of coercion The preset objecions

are herefore hout meri or legal bass l and the orm -21 3 is admied

as it s nherenly trustohy 1 . The Court inds tha

the objectios relatng to the admission of this orm -213 ail to establsh a suficiet

legal basis or hich o exclude hs document

Having admited he Governmet's form -21 3 the Court sustaied the

allegaios tha he respondet is no a ciize or aional of the United States bu

instead he is an alie based upo his satus of beig a ative and citizen o Mexico

The burde he shifs, uder Secio 29 o the Ac, to the respondet to estabish by

clear ad convicng evidece relaig o his ime place, and maer of enry I hat

regard the Court oes tha responde, through counsel, adsed he Court that he has

no evdence to present i terms of his time lace, and maer of enry Accordngly

A20-06-436 6 December 6 2013

I m m i g r a n t & R e f u g e e A p p e l l a t e C e n

t e r , L L C| w w w . i r a

c . n e t


12/14

the Govermet s ettled to the charge ad the charge therefore must be sustaed.

Respodet deced to desgate a coutry of removal n ths case The

Governmet n ths case recommended respodet's natve country of Mexco as the

coutry of remova As to relef the oy reef appled for or othese established by

the respondet is fr volutary deparure at the cocusio of the proceedngs

Consderg the evdece preseted that there s o statutory bar for volutary

depaure and the Goverments non-opposition to grat of this mma frm of

discretoary relef, the Court fds that t s approprate under the totality of

crcumstances to grat hm ths opporuty despte apparetly that he had had more

tha oe legal etry to the Uted States There s o other appcato apped for or

othese establshed by the respodet The record does ot conta ay other

pedg reef applcatos upo whch the Court could adjudcate o the merts Based

upon the foregog the folowg orders shal therefore be etered:

ORDERS

IT S EREBY ORDERED that the respodent be grated volutarydeparture lieu of a order of removal such departure to take pace without expese

to the Unted States Goverent on or before February 4 2014

IT IS FRTER ORDERED that the respodet shal pay a $500

vountary departure bod to the Imgrato ad Customs Efrcement field oce

drector within fve busess days of todays date

T S FURTER ORDERED that the respondet shall preset to the

Departmet of omead Securty o or before Jauary 6 2014 a ecessary travel

ocumes or vounary departure

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that shoud the respodet fal to abde by

any of the foregog orders or shoud he wthdraw hs request for volutay departure

A205056436 7 Qeceber 6, 2013





13/14

hen hese voluntary departure orders sall wihout urter notce or proceedngs vacate

and the aternate order of remova shall become efectve e olowing day: the

respondent sall be removed from the United States to Mexico on the charge contaed

in te Noice to Appear

THI RR OF O L D IO W V WD ON EBRY

W E BE O E ECD OCE ED G

sinature

December 6 201 3

A20-056-436

Please see the next page for electronic

PHI IP S. mmigration Jdge

8 December 6, 201 3

I m m i g r a n t & R e f u

g e e A p p e l l a t e C e n

t e r , L L C| w w w . i r a

c . n e t


14/14

�\

/ I s l

Imigraton Judge PHIL P S . AW

lawp o Febuay 6 , 2 0 1 4 a 1 : 57 M GT

A205-06436 9 December 6, 2013




a c . n e t

Date post:	08-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	immigrant-refugee-appellate-center-llc
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Ivan Velazco Castellano, A205 056 436 (BIA March 8, 2016)

Documents