Perez Cruz v. Barr

926 F.3d 1128 (2019)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

ICE received an anonymous tip that Micro Solutions Enterprises (MSE) employed 200 to 300 undocumented immigrants. About two years later, in February 2008, ICE agents sought and received a search warrant for employment-related documents located at the MSE factory in Van Nuys, California, and criminal complaints and arrest warrants for eight MSE employees. An internal memorandum issued before the operation stated that ICE '[would] be conducting a search warrant and expects to make 150-200 arrests.' ICE would have '2 buses and 5 vans' ready to transport potential detainees from the factory and '200 detention beds available to support the operation.' ICE 'anticipated executing a federal criminal search warrant at MSE in order to administratively arrest as many as 100 unauthorized workers.' Approximately 100 armed and uniformed ICE agents streamed into the MSE factory. Blocking all visible exits, the agents ordered all workers to stop working and announced that no one was permitted to leave. The agents prohibited the workers from contacting anyone using their cellphones and allowed them to use the restroom only with an ICE escort. P, a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without inspection in 1994 was detained. The ICE agents eventually ordered P, along with others, to stand against the wall. Agents conducted a pat down of each of them. The agent who frisked P took his wallet. The detainees were then handcuffed and questioned. While P was handcuffed, the agents asked him his name, his nationality, his date of birth, and the length of time he had worked at the factory. The agents then escorted P and the other detained male workers into another hallway, where they were questioned again. Eventually, P provided statements to the agents indicating that he lacked lawful immigration status. P was taken to a detention facility in downtown Los Angeles. P was kept overnight and interrogated 2 more times and eventually released around 1:00 a.m. P was one of 130 workers at the MSE factory arrested for immigration violations. A month later, P received a notice to appear for a removal hearing. Based on the statements P provided during his detention, ICE agents prepared a Form I-213 alleging that P had admitted that he was brought illegally into the United States as a child. D produced P's birth certificate, obtained by an ICE agent in Mexico. P moved to terminate the proceedings or to suppress the evidence as it was in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The IJ granted the motion to terminate, concluding that ICE's initial detention of P and failure to advise P of his rights 'violated ICE's own regulation.' D appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed. The BIA relied on Michigan v. Summers and held P's detention and arrest violated neither the agency's regulations nor the Fourth Amendment. It also held that the evidence introduced by D was offered to prove only P's 'identity' and therefore could not be suppressed. The IJ entered a removal order against P. The BIA affirmed the IJ's order and dismissed the appeal. P appealed.