N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JOSE LUIS GAR C IA-GAR C IA, Pe titione r,
v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t
. No. 10-70432 Age n c y No. A079-638-308
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls Argue d a n d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 4, 2013 Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS, GOULD, a nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s . Jose Luis Ga

rc ia -Ga rc ia

pe titions for re v ie w of a

n orde r of the B oa

rd of Im m i gra tion Appe a l s dism issing his a ppe a l of a de c ision by

an im m igra tion judge de ny ing his m otion to suppre ss e vide n c e of a lie na ge and to te rm inate proc e e dings,
a nd orde ring Ga

rc ia -Ga rc ia

re m ove d from

the Unite d

Sta te s. 

# FIL ED

D EC 26 2013 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Ge ne ra lly , the e x c lusiona ry rule doe s not a

p ply in c ivil im

m i gra tion proc e e dings. IN

S v . Lope z-Me ndoza , 468 U.S. 1032, 1034, 1050 (1984); LopezRodrigue z v . Muk ase y , 536 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th C ir. 2008). Howe ve r,

“ a d m inistra tive tribuna ls a

re still re quire d to e x c lude e v ide nc e tha t wa s ‘ obta ine d by de libe ra te viola

tions of theFourth Am e ndm e n t or by c o nduc t a re a sona

ble offic e r should know is in viola t ion of the C onstitution.’ ” Lope z-Rodrigue

z , 536 F.3d at 1016 (quoting O rhorhaghe v . IN S , 38 F.3d 488, 493 (9th C ir. 1994)). Se iz ing a n individua l ba s e d sole ly

on his or he r Hispa

nic a ppe a ra nc e or Hispa n ic -sounding na

m e is a n e gre gious viola

tion of the Fourth Am e ndm e nt. Se e Orhorhaghe , 38 F.3d a

t 497-98, 503; Gonzale

z-Riv e ra v . IN

S , 22 F.3d 1441, 1448- 50 (9th C ir. 1994). Garc ia -Ga rc ia , howe ve r, ha s offe re d a bsolute ly no e vide nc e that his Hispa nic a ppe a ra n c e or his Hispa

n ic -sounding la s t na

m e we re the re a sons for his c ontinue d

de te ntion. In fa c t, he fre e ly a dm itte d tha

t he did not know why im m igra tion offic e rs took c ustody of him a fte r he ha d be e n judic i a lly c le a re d of
c rim ina l c ha

rge s. Furthe rm ore , his a

rgum e nt tha

t, “ [a ] b se nt a

n othe r e xpla

na tion, it should be pre sum e d tha

t his Hispa

nic a ppe a ra nc e a nd surna

m e we re the grounds for his c ontinue d

de te ntion in Los Ange le s e v e n a fte r he wa s c l e a re d of c rim ina l
c ha rge s,” is without ba sis in the la w a nd we de c line to a dopt it. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.
Pa ge -2-Garc ia-Garc ia v . Holde r , No. 10-70432

HAW KINS, Se nior C irc uit Judge , c onc urring: B e c a use it i s not c le a r the DHS a g e nts w h o a ssum e d cu s t o dy o f Pe titione r in Los A nge le s kne w that the de t a ine r issue d a ga inst him m a y h a ve re fe rre d to a diffe re nt individua l, the i r a rre st of Pe titione r did not viola te the Fourth Am e ndm e nt. Se e Hill
v . C alifornia , 401 U.S. 797, 802-04 (1971); Unite d State s v . E s pinosa , 827 F.2d 604, 609 (9th C i r. 1987). Ac c ordingly , I join the C o urt’ s opinion in full. I w rite se p a ra te ly to re m i nd a ll pa rtie s that the y ha ve a sha

re d re sponsibility to build a c om

ple te re c ord during a dm inistra tive proc e e dings. Docu m e nts that a re i n t eg r al to the pa

rtie s’ fa c tua l a nd le ga l c la i m s should be inc lude d in the re co r d pre s e nte d to this c ourt. He re , DHS re lie s on the Form I-213 a s its sole e vide nc e of a l ie na ge . For his pa rt, Pe titione r a

rgue s DHS’ s re lia

nc e on a n im

m igra tion de t a ine r, Form I-247, in
a rre sting Pe t itione r ra n a fou l o f t h e Constitution. In the c onte xt of re m ova l proc e e dings, the se ar e b ot h se rious c ha rge s. B ut the re le v a nt doc um e nts a re not be fore us. The I-247 is not in the re c ord. T he I-213 i s m issing a c ritic a l a tta c hm e nt. The M e xic a n ide ntific ation, whic h the B IA re a sone d provide d DHS with re a sona ble
s u s p i ci o n to a rre s t Pe titione r, is n ot in the re c o rd. T he a b se nc e of the se c riti cal doc um e nts frustra

te s this c ourt’ s a

bility to re vie w the proc e e dings be low. Going forwa rd, DHS s hould vol u n ta rily furnish the im

m igra tion c ourt with 

# FIL ED
D EC 26 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALSdoc um e nts in its posse ssion tha t a re c e ntra l to the litiga

tion. If the a ge nc y re fuse s to produc e the se “ e s s en t i al ” doc um e nts, the a lie n m a y subpoe na the m . 8 C .F.R
. § § 1003.35, 1287.4(a )(2)(ii); se e Oliv a-Ramos v . Att’y Ge n ’l , 694 F.3d 259, 273 (3d C ir. 2012) (re m a nding with instruc t ions to grant subpoe na s in a suppre ssion c a se)
. And the IJ a nd B IA s hould de m a nd the i r inc lusion in the re c o r d
. As ne utra l de c isionm a ke rs, t he IJ a nd B IA should insist a ll re l e va nt fa c ts be be fore the m whe n de c iding whe the r a n individua l is to be re m ove d from this c ountry
. Nor, in the se suppre ssion c a s e s, s hould the gove rnm e nt be a ble t o ci t e M

a tte r of Barc e n as , 19 I. & N
. De c . 609 (B IA 1988), t o disc l a im a ny res p o n sibility to produc e re c ords a nd witne sse s . In m y vie w— a nd, it se e m s, in the vie w of the Se c ond
a nd Third C irc uits—

the Barc e nas “ burde n ,” i d

. at 6 1 1, re fe rs only to the a lie n’ s burde n of pe rsua sion, a nd not to t he burde n of p roduc tion of re le va nt e v ide nc e . Se e C otzojay v . Holde r , 725 F.3d 1 72, 179-80, 183 (2d C ir. 2013) (re quiring pe titione r to furnish only pe rsona l te stim ony be fore re quiring the gove rnm e nt to justify the
se iz ure ); Oliv a-Ramos , 694 F.3d at 273 (holding pe t itione r wa s e ntitle d to s ubpoe na
a ge nc y re c ords a nd pe rsonne l to e sta blish c onstitutiona

l c la im ); c f. K aur v . I.N .S. , 237 F .3 d 1 098, 1100–01 (9th C ir. 2001) (re m a nding with instruc tion to grant as yl u m
a pplic a nts a subpoe na for e vide nc e m a t e ria l t o the ir c la im ). A c ontra ry inte rpre ta tion risks viola

ting the princ iple s of funda m e nta l fa irne ss gove rning re m o va l proc e e dings. 2Se e I.N

.S. v . Lope

z-Me ndoza , 468 U.S. 1032, 1051 (1984) (plura lity op.); S aidane v . I.N .S. , 129 F.3d 1063, 1065 (9th C ir. 1997).

3