T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yf i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T F R AN C I S C O J AV I E R AR R E OL ACERV A N TES, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 05- 76967 A ge nc yN o. A 077- 789- 004 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r11, 2009 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , R A W L IN S O N an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P e t i t i one rF r a nc i s c o J a vi e rA rr e ol a - C e rva nt e s , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of M e x ic o , ap p e a ls a n o r d e rb yth e B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls d is m is s in g h is ap p eal fro m an Im m i g rat i o n Ju d g e’ s (“ IJ”) o rd er fi n d i n g h i m i n ad m i ssi b l e b ecau se 

# FI LED DE C 21 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

h e h a df a ls e lys tate dh e w a s aU n ite dS ta te s c itiz e n w h ile a tte m p tin g to e n te rth is c ountry . W e de nythe pe t i t i on. P e t i t i one ra dm i tt e d— f

i r s tt o abor de rpa tr ol a ge nt , the n t o the I J

— tha the f a ls e lyr e p r e s e n te dh im s e lf to b e aU .S . c itiz e n to g a in e n tryin to th e U n ite dS ta te s . T h is m e a n t th a t P e titio n e rw a s in a d m is s ib le u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( C ) ( ii) . P e t i t i one ra r gue s tha tthe I Je rr e d i n de ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o e xc l ude the t es t i m on y of the bo rderpatrol agent . W e di sa gree . T he excl usi on ary rul e app l i es in c iv il im m ig r a tio n p r o c e e d in g s o n lyw h e n th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t v io la tio n is

“ egre gi ou s. ” G o n z a lez - Ri v e ra v . I NS , 2 2 F .3 d1 4 4 1 , 1 4 4 8 - 4 9 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ; se e IN S v. L o p ez-Men do za , 468 U . S . 1032, 1050- 51 ( 1984) . E ve n a s s um i ng P e t i t i one r ’ s F ourth A m e ndm e ntr i ght s w e r e vi ol a t e d, the vi ol a t i on w a s not

“ egre gi ou s. ” T he agentt es t i fi ed that , w hi l e atthe E l P as o ai rport , P et i t i on er ap p e a r e dn e rv o u s , a v o id e de y e c o n ta c t, an da tte m p te dto e v a d e s e c u r ity . T h e r e is no i ndi c a t i on tha t , i n s t oppi ng P e t i t i one r , the a ge nta c t e d i n ba d f a i th or d e lib e r a te lyv io la te dP e titio n e r ’s r ig h ts . See G o n za lez-R i vera , 2 2 F .3 da t 1 4 4 9 . B e c au s e n o “e g r e g io u s ” F o u rth A m e n d m e n t v io la tio n o c c u rr e d , th e I Jp r o p e r ly d e n ie dP e titio n e r ’s m o tio n to e x c lu d e th e te s tim o n yo f th e b o r d e rp a tr o l a g e n t. P et i t i on eral so ar gu es thatthe Im m i grat i on and N at i on al i ty A ct(“ IN A ”) v io la te s e q u a l p r o te c tio n b e c au s e th e I N A d o e s n o t p e rm it th e A tto rn e yG e n e r a l toI n hi s br i e f , P e t i t i one rc l a i m s tha tthe I N A vi ol a t e s the E qua l P r ot e c t i on 1 C l aus e , w hi c h appl i e s onl ya ga i ns tthe S t a t e s . G i vi ng P e t i t i one rthe be ne f i tof the doubt , w e tr e a thi s a r gum e nta s one a l l e gi ng avi ol a t i on of the e qua l pr ot e c t i on com po nentof the D ue P roce ss C l ause of the F i fth A m endm ent , w hi ch appl i es a g a in s t th e f

e d e r a l g o v e rn m e n t. 3 w ai ve fa l se re pres ent at i on of ci t i ze nshi p as agrou nd of i nadm i ss i bi l i ty. H e not es 1 tha tthe I N A author i z e s the A tt orne yG e ne r a l t o w a i ve othe rgr ounds of in a d m is s ib ility , s u c h a s in a d m is s ib ilityb e c au s e o f p r io rc r im in a l c o n v ic tio n s . See IN A § 2 12 (h), 8 U . S . C . § 1 18 2(h). In P et i t i on er ’ s vi ew , “ thi s y aw ni ng vari ance be tw e e n w a i ve r s f

orha r de ne d c r i m i na l s a nd thi s pe t i t i one rvi ol a t e s [ the c o n s titu tio n a l g u a r a n te e o f e q u a l p r o te c tio n ].” “F e d e r a l c la s s if

ic a tio n s d is tin g u is h in g a m o n g g r o up s o f a lie n s a r e . . . v a lid un l es s ‘ w ho l l y i rr at i on al . ’ ” Sudom i rv . McM ahon , 76 7 F . 2d 14 56 , 14 64 (9th C i r. 1985) ( quot i ng M

athe w s v . D i az , 4 2 6 U .S . 6 7 , 8 3 (1 9 8 1 )) . H er e, th e I N A ’s tr e a tm e ntof

f a l s e r e pr e s e nt a t i on of

c i t i z e ns hi p a s anon- w a i vabl e gr ound of in a d m is s ib ilityis n o t “w h o llyirr a tio n a l.” C o n g r e s s h a s a n o b v io u s in te r e s t in d e te rr in g p e o p le w h o a r e e n te r in g th e c o u n tryf r o m ly in g ab o u t th e irc itiz e n s h ip . Se e Re i d v . I NS , 42 0 U . S . 61 9, 62 4 (19 75 ). W e there fore re j ec tP et i t i on er ’ s e qu al p r o te c tio n a r g u m e n t. P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.