Case ID: f-appx_286/html/0422-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joel SERNA-CARRERA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-71815.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 15, 2008.
    
    Filed July 23, 2008.
    Gary Olive, Law Office of Gary Olive, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    District Director, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, M. Jocelyn Wright, Esq., Brianne Whelan, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joel Serna-Carrera petitions for review of a removal order. He argues that the IJ should have granted his motion to withdraw his earlier concession of removability and suppress the I-213.

The IJ did not err in denying Serna-Carrera’s motion to suppress or to withdraw his plea. Serna-Carrera’s argument that the 1-213, his statements and concession, and the INS proceedings, were the fruit of an unlawful stop fails. Serna-Carrera has not shown that the 1-213 was obtained “through an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment.” The agents in this case had “specific articulable facts together with rational inferences from these facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion that the vehicles contain aliens who may be illegally in the country.” This facts in this case are distinguishable from both of the cases relied upon by Serna-Carrera, Orhorhaghe v. INS and Gonzalez-Rivera v. INS. Serna-Carrera has not met his burden of showing that the 1-213 was obtained through an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . See Florez-de Solis v. INS, 796 F.2d 330, 333 (9th Cir. 1986).
     
      
      . Orhorhaghe v. INS, 38 F.3d 488, 493 (9th Cir. 1994).
     
      
      . Gonzalez-Rivera v. INS, 22 F.3d 1441, 1443 (9th Cir. 1994).
     
      
      . 38 F.3d 488 (9th Cir. 1994).
     
      
      . 22 F.3d 1441 (9th Cir. 1994).