N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JOSEPH KWA KU B OATENG,

Pe t i tione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 11-72044 Age n c y No. A087-454-482 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 15, 2016 Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M ELLOY, ** C L IFTON, a nd WA TFORD, C i rc u it Judge s. Jose ph Kwa

ku B oat e ng a

ppe a ls the distric t

c o urt’ s de te rm inat ion tha t he is not a Unite d State s c i tiz e n, a

rguing tha

t the Gove rnm e n t fa ile d

to e sta blish a lie na ge by c l e ar, une quivoc a l , a

nd c onvinc ing e v ide nc e , viola te d his Fourth Am e ndm e nt rights a nd 18 U.S.C . § 2511 by

wire ta pping phonec a lls he pla c e d from a de te ntion 

# FIL ED D EC 02 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble M ic ha e l J. M e lloy , Unite d State s C i rc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Eighth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.c e nte r, and viola te d his due proc e ss rights by fa iling to provide

him his A-file be fore the distric t c o urt proc e e dings. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, and de ny his pe tition for re vie w. The distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in de te rm ining tha t the Gove rnm e nt m e t its e v ide ntia

ry burde n of e sta

blishing alie na ge by

“ c l e ar, une quivoc a l , a

nd c onvinc i ng e vide nc e .” Mondac a-Ve ga v . Ly n c h , 808 F.3d 413, 420, 426 (9th C ir. 2015) (holding tha

t the Gove rnm e nt’ s burde n to e sta blish a lie na ge by

“ c le a r, une quivoc a l, a

nd c onvinc ing” e vide nc e signifie s the sa m e inte rm e diate sta

nda rd a s

“ c l e ar and c onvinc i ng” and tha t a distric t c ourt’ s c itiz e nship de te rm ination unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(5)(B ) is re vie we d for c l e ar e rror). To de m onstra te tha t Jose ph B oate ng wa s born in Gha n a , the Gove rnm e nt offe re d: his fa the r’ s a p plic a tion for la wful re side n c e c e rtify ing Joseph wa s born in Ac c ra , Gha na ; his a pplic a tions for a Soc ia l Se c urity

c ard and a

re pla c e m e nt Soc ia l Se c urity c ard listing Ac c ra , Gha

na , a s his birthplac e ; his Te xa s ide ntific a tion c ard a c q uire d through a

n a pplic at ion listing Koforidua , Gha

n a , a s the a

pplic ant’ s birthpla c e ; an d a Form I-20 c e rtific a te of e ligibility

for nonim

m igra n t sta tus fille d out by

a Tuske ge e Unive rsity a dm issions offic e r on be ha lf of Jose ph B oate ng, listing Gha n a a s the a pplic ant’ s pla c e of birth.

2In a ddition, a s the distric t c ourt c onc l ude d, the re we re a lso re a sons to

que stion theve ra c ity

of the doc um e nts B oate ng offe re d a s e vide nc e . The distric t c ourt ide ntifie d

an om a l ie s in se ve ra l doc um e nts, indic a tive of a la c k of a uthe ntic ity . M ore ove r, tra nsc ripts of phonec a lls B oate ng pla c e d from the de te ntion c e nte r c a st doubt upon the re lia bility of his e vide nc e . The tra

n sc ripts re ve a le d B oate ng spe a k ing with his brothe r an d m othe r a

bout the c osts of proc uring a

n im m uniz ation c ard and the inform a tion tha t should be inc lude d on it whe n his m othe r pre pa

re d it. The distric t c o urt’ s de te rm ination tha t the Gove rnm e nt bore its burde n of e sta blishing alie n a g e , e ve n if it ha d a dm itte d the doc um e nts B oat e ng offe re d a s e vide nc e , “ is pla usible in light of the

re c ord vie we d in its e ntire ty .” Mondac a-Ve ga , 808 F.3d a

t 426 (quoting Ande rson v . C i ty of Be sse m e r C ity , N .C
. , 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985)). B oate ng fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t the Gove rnm e nt viola

te d his Fourth Am e ndm e nt rights by

wire ta pping thephone c a lls he pla c e d from the de te ntion c e nte r. The Fourth Am e ndm e nt is only trigge re d if the Gove rnm e nt “ intrude s into an a re a in whic h the re is a

‘ c onstitutiona

lly prote c te d re a sona

ble e xpe c tation of priva c y .’ ” Unite d State

s v . Van Poy c k , 77 F.3d 285, 290 (9th C ir. 1996) (quoting N e w York v . C lass , 475 U.S. 106, 112 (1986)). “ [A] ‘ c onstitutiona lly prote c te d re a s ona ble e xpe c tation of priva c y ’ e xists only if (1) the de fe nda

nt ha s a n ‘ a c tua l 3subje c tive e xpe c tation of priva c y ’ in the pla c e se arc he d and (2) soc ie t

y is obje c tive ly

pre pa re d to re c ogniz e that e xpe c tation.” Id. (quoting U nite d State

s v . Dav is , 932 F.2d 752, 756 (9th C ir. 1991)). Eve n if B o a te n g c ould e sta b lish a re a s ona ble e xpe c tation of priva c y in c a l ls pla c e d from

the de te ntion c e nte r, he c ould not prove that the wire t a p wa s unre a sona

ble , a s “ i nstitutiona

l se c urity c onc e rns justify

suc h re c ordings a

nd re nde r the m

re a sona ble for Fourth Am e ndm e nt purpose s.” Id. a t 291. B oate ng did not de m onstra te tha t the wire ta

p viola te d 18 U.S.C . § 2511. Although 18 U.S.C
. § 2511(1)(b) forbids the inte ntiona l use of a

ny “ e l e c tronic , m e c ha nic a l, or othe r de vic e to inte rc e pt a ny ora l c om m unic a tion,” be c a

use “ ora l c om m unic a tions m ay

be inte rc e pte d by

inve stiga tive and la

w e n forc e m e n t offic e rs a c ting in the ordina

ry c ourse of the ir dutie s,” and be c a use im plie d c onse nt m ay

be found whe n a

n individual use d a

phone whe re wa

rnings of re c ording ha d be e n issue d, B oate ng ha s not shown a viola tion of thesta

tute . Se e Van Poy c k

, 77 F.3d a

t 291-92. B oate ng’ s due proc e ss rights to a full a n d fa ir he aring we re not viola te d by the G ove rnm e nt’ s fa ilure to provide his A-file during the distric t c ourt proc e e dings. To pre va i l on a due proc e ss c la im , an individual m ust e sta blish tha t the p roc e e ding wa s “ so funda m e nta lly unfa ir,” tha

t he “ wa s pre ve nte d from
4re a s ona

bly pre se nting his c a se , ” and tha t this c a use d pre judic e , m e aning “ the outc om e of the proc e e ding m ay have be e n a ffe c te d by

the a lle g e d viola

tion.” De nt v . Holde r , 627 F.3d 365, 373 (9th C ir. 2010). He re , re ga rdle ss of whe the r the Gove rnm e nt should ha

ve produc e d the A-file during his re m ova l proc e e d ings, the A-file ha s sinc e be e n

give n to B oate ng a

nd he ha s not shown tha

t the doc um e nts c ould re a sona

bly have a ffe c te d the outc om e of the proc e e ding, the re by fa iling to e sta blish pre judic e . Se e id. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W DE NIE D.

5