Sanchez v. Sessions
904 F.3d 643 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An egregious regulatory violation by immigration officers, such as a detention based solely on race in contravention of 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(b)(2), may warrant the termination of removal proceedings without prejudice, even when the government possesses independent, untainted evidence of removability.
Facts:
- Luis Sanchez, a citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection in 1988.
- In 2004, Sanchez applied for and was granted Family Unity Benefits and an Employment Authorization Document.
- In 2008, Sanchez's application for an extension of these benefits was denied due to prior vehicle code violations, leaving him without lawful status.
- On February 25, 2010, Sanchez and friends went fishing in his boat from Channel Islands Harbor, California.
- Approximately 30 minutes into the trip and within U.S. territorial waters, the boat's engine lost power.
- A friend called 911 for help, and the U.S. Coast Guard responded by towing the boat back to the harbor.
- Upon their return to the dock, about eight Coast Guard officers were waiting and immediately detained, frisked, and took identification from Sanchez and his friends.
- The Coast Guard contacted Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to report the 'possibility of 4 undocumented worker[ ] aliens' and held the group for two hours until CBP arrived, during which Sanchez admitted he entered the U.S. without inspection.
Procedural Posture:
- The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Sanchez by filing a Notice to Appear with an Immigration Judge (IJ).
- Sanchez filed a motion to suppress evidence and terminate proceedings, arguing the Coast Guard's detention violated his rights.
- The IJ denied the motion and ordered Sanchez removed to Mexico.
- Sanchez appealed the IJ's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
- The BIA dismissed the appeal, concluding that even if a violation occurred, Sanchez's removability was established by independent evidence from his prior immigration applications.
- Sanchez filed a petition for review of the BIA's final order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an egregious regulatory violation, such as detaining an individual solely based on perceived race in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(b)(2), warrant the termination of removal proceedings without prejudice, even when untainted evidence of alienage exists?
Opinions:
Majority - Paez, J.
Yes, an egregious regulatory violation, such as a detention based solely on race, may warrant the termination of removal proceedings without prejudice to deter such conscience-shocking conduct. The court holds that Coast Guard officers enforcing immigration law are subject to the same regulations as immigration officers, including 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(b)(2), which requires reasonable suspicion for a detention. Sanchez made a prima facie showing that he was detained solely on the basis of his Latino appearance, as officers suspected he was undocumented before they asked for identification and had no other articulable facts. Such a race-based detention constitutes an egregious regulatory violation. While the exclusionary rule is an insufficient remedy here because the government possesses independent evidence of Sanchez's alienage (his prior immigration applications), the court adopts the Second Circuit's remedy of terminating proceedings without prejudice for egregious pre-hearing violations. This remedy is necessary to deter conscience-shocking conduct like racial profiling and to place the parties in the position they would have been in had the violation not occurred.
Concurring - Paez, J.
The concurrence, adopting the reasoning of a prior concurrence by the late Judge Pregerson, expresses deep concern over the government's practice of encouraging noncitizens to apply for immigration benefits and then using the information from those applications against them in removal proceedings. This creates a contradictory and unfair dilemma that discourages noncitizens from 'coming out of the shadows.' The opinion also argues against categorically exempting pre-existing records from the exclusionary rule, as it could incentivize law enforcement to engage in unconstitutional racial profiling to identify individuals and then search government databases for pre-existing incriminating information.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant new remedy in the Ninth Circuit for government misconduct in immigration cases. By holding that an egregious regulatory violation like racial profiling can lead to the termination of proceedings without prejudice, the court moves beyond the traditional remedy of evidence suppression. This is particularly important in cases where suppression would be ineffective due to the existence of untainted evidence. The ruling creates a stronger deterrent against 'conscience-shocking' constitutional and regulatory violations by immigration authorities, empowering courts to dismiss an entire case rather than just exclude certain pieces of evidence.
