Sebastian Quintero-Huerta v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Sebastian Quintero-Huerta v. Eric Holder, Jr.

470 F. App'x 615

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 2012

Docket10-73537

StatusUnpublished

This text of 470 F. App'x 615 (Sebastian Quintero-Huerta v. Eric Holder, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sebastian Quintero-Huerta v. Eric Holder, Jr., 470 F. App'x 615 (9th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Sebastian Quintero-Huerta, 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”) decision denying his motion to suppress evidence and his request to terminate proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo. See United States v. Jones, 286 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not err in denying the motion to suppress. The exclusionary rule does not generally apply in immigration proceedings. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1050-51, 104 S.Ct. 3479, 82 L.Ed.2d 778 (1984). We have held, however, that it does bar the introduction of evidence obtained through “egregious violations” of the Fourth Amendment. See Orhorhaghe v. INS, 38 F.3d 488, 493 (9th Cir.1994). An officer acts egregiously when he “committ[s] the violation deliberately or by conduct a reasonable officer should have known would violate the Constitution.” Id. Quintero-Huerta does not contend that the officers here deliberately violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Nor should a reasonable officer have known that the Anacortes checkpoint was unconstitutional. See United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976). Thus, even if there was a violation, an issue we do not decide, the motion was properly denied.

The record does not support QuinteroHuerta’s contention that the government violated either 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(b)(1) or INA § 287(a)(2). Furthermore, QuinteroHuerta admitted his unlawful presence pri- or to his arrest. United States v. Calderon-Medina, 591 F.2d 529, 531 (9th Cir.1979) (A violation of an INS regulation invalidates a deportation proceeding only if “the regulation serves a purpose of benefit to the alien” and “the violation prejudiced *616 interests of the alien which were protected by the regulation.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Sebastian Quintero-Huerta, 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”) decision denying his motion to suppress evidence and his request to terminate proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo. See United States v. Jones, 286 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not err in denying the motion to suppress. The exclusionary rule does not generally apply in immigration proceedings. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1050-51, 104 S.Ct. 3479, 82 L.Ed.2d 778 (1984). We have held, however, that it does bar the introduction of evidence obtained through “egregious violations” of the Fourth Amendment. See Orhorhaghe v. INS, 38 F.3d 488, 493 (9th Cir.1994). An officer acts egregiously when he “committ[s] the violation deliberately or by conduct a reasonable officer should have known would violate the Constitution.” Id. Quintero-Huerta does not contend that the officers here deliberately violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Nor should a reasonable officer have known that the Anacortes checkpoint was unconstitutional. See United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976). Thus, even if there was a violation, an issue we do not decide, the motion was properly denied.

The record does not support QuinteroHuerta’s contention that the government violated either 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(b)(1) or INA § 287(a)(2). Furthermore, QuinteroHuerta admitted his unlawful presence pri- or to his arrest. United States v. Calderon-Medina, 591 F.2d 529, 531 (9th Cir.1979) (A violation of an INS regulation invalidates a deportation proceeding only if “the regulation serves a purpose of benefit to the alien” and “the violation prejudiced *616 interests of the alien which were protected by the regulation.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

470 F. App'x 615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sebastian-quintero-huerta-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack