17-1153 Vazquez-Medrano v. Sessions BIA Montante, IJ A200 561 889 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this Court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 12th day of June, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, GERARD E. LYNCH, SUSAN L CARNEY, Circuit Judges, _____________________________________ JOSE VAZQUEZ-MEDRANO, Petitioner, v. 17-1153 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Jose Perez, Law Offices of Jose Perez, P.C., Syracuse, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Julie M. Iversen, Senior Litigation Counsel; Evan P. Schultz, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Jose Vazquez-Medrano seeks review of a March 22, 2017 decision of the BIA affirming January 12, 2016 and March 11, 2016 decisions of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Vazquez-Medrano’s motions to suppress evidence and continue removal proceedings, and ordering him removed to Mexico. In re Jose Vazquez-Medrano, No. A 200 561 889 (B.I.A. Mar. 22, 2017), aff’g No. A200 561 889 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo Jan. 12 and Mar. 11, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. I. We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Cotzojay v. Holder, 725 F.3d 172, 177 n.5 (2d Cir. 2013). We find no error in the agency’s denial of Vazquez-Medrano’s motion to suppress evidence of his alienage in his removal proceedings. Suppression of evidence in removal proceedings is warranted “if record evidence establishe[s] either (a) that an egregious violation that was fundamentally unfair ha[s] occurred, or (b) that the violation—regardless of its egregiousness or unfairness—undermine[s] the reliability of the evidence in dispute.” Almeida-Amaral v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 231, 235 (2d Cir. 2006); see also INS v. Lopez- Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1050-51 (1984) (plurality opinion). A constitutional violation may be egregious “if an individual is subjected to a seizure for no reason at ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals