U.S.

Department of Justice

Executive Ot1ice for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals Office <?.fthe Clerk
5107 Letsburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church. V1rg;nia 220.fl

Castro, Hugo Cesar, Esquire 11900 Parklawn Dr., Suite 320 Rockville, MD 20852

DHSnCE Office of Chief Counsel - BAL 31 Hopkins Plaza, Room 1600 Baltimore, MD 21201

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name: PAZ-AVALOS, KRISSIA ROSIBEL

A 200-123-950

Date of this notice: 1216/2012

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case. Sincerely,

DoYUtL caftAJ
Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure
Panel Members: Cole, Patricia A.

Lulseges Userteam: Docket

Cite as: Krissia Rosibel Paz-Avalos, A200 123 950 (BIA Dec. 6, 2012)

..

U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia

Decision of the Board oflmmigration Appeals

22041

File: A200 123 950 - Baltimore, MD

In

Date:

DEC e 2012

re: KRISSIA ROSIBEL PAZ-AVALOS

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF DHS: Hugo Cesar Castro, Esquire

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Jennifer Piateski Assistant Chief Counsel

CHARGE: Notice: Sec. 212(a)(6)(A)(i), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. I 182(a)(6)(A)(i)] Present without being admitted or paroled

APPLICATION: Termination

The respondent, a native and citizen of El Salvador, has denied the factual allegations and charge in the Notice to Appear (Exh. 1). She seeks termination of these removal proceedings, arguing that the Form I-213 submitted by the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") to prove removability was obtained in violation of her constitutional rights (Exh. 3). See 8 C.F.R. 1240.S(a) (the DHS bears the burden of establishing removability by clear and convincing evidence). On December 16, 2010, the Immigration Judge denied the respondent's motion to suppress the Form I-213. Subsequently, on March 15, 2011, he found the respondent removable under section 2 I 2(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. I 182(a)(6)(A)(i), relying on the Fonn I-213. As the respondent declined to seek relief, the Immigration Judge ordered her removed to El Salvador. The appeal will be dismissed. The Board reviews an Immigration Judge's findings of fact for clear error. 8 C.F.R. 1003. I(d)(3)(i). On the other hand, we review de novo issues of law, discretion, or judgment. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l (d)(3)(ii). In denying the motion to terminate, the Immigration Judge stated that "a removal proceeding is a purely civil action to determine a person's eligibility to remain in the country. Consistent with the civil nature, various protections in criminal proceedings do not apply." Citing INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. I 032 (1984), the Immigration Judge concluded that "the exclusionary rule does not apply here." alien contesting the legality of evidence must establish a prima facie case of illegality before the OHS will be required to justify the manner in which it obtained the evidence.
An

Cite as: Krissia Rosibel Paz-Avalos, A200 123 950 (BIA Dec. 6, 2012)

A200 123 950

A1atter o f Barcenas, 19 l&N Dec. 609, 611 (BIA 1988). To suppress evidence, the alien bears the
burden of proving that the relevant evidence contained erroneous information, or resulted from coercion or duress. Id It is well settled that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule does not apply in removal proceedings when the alleged violations are not so "egregious" as to "transgress notions of fundamental fairness." INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, supra, at I 050-51. The respondent claims that on October 28, 2005, Rio Grande, Texas police officers ordered her to enter their vehicle without presenting a warrant for her arrest and transferred her to DHS immigration authorities. On appeal, the respondent argues she was arrested in violation of 8 C.F.R. 287.8(c)(2)(i). However, section 287 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1357, defines the powers of immigration officers and DHS employees. Furthermore, the respondent has not asserted that the DHS engaged in any egregious conduct. She also does not claim that the statements in the Form I-213 regarding her alienage and manner of entry into the United States are inaccurate. Therefore, the respondent has not satisfied her burden of proving that the Form I-213 should be suppressed. See Matter ofBarcenas, supra, at 611;

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Lopez-Mendoza, supra, at 1050-51.

Accordingly, the following order is entered. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Cite as: Krissia Rosibel Paz-Avalos, A200 123 950 (BIA Dec. 6, 2012)

EXECUT IVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT Baltimore, Maryland

UNITED

STATES

DEPARTMENT

OF JUSTICE

File No. :

A 200 123 950

March

15,

2011

In the Matter of KRISSIA ROSIBEL PAZ-AVALOS Respondent CHARGE:

) ) )

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

IN REMOVAL

PROCEE D INGS

)
of the

Violation of Section 212 (a) (6) (A) (i) Immigration and Nationality Act.

APPLICATIONS:

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:

ON BEHALF OF

OHS:

Randolph Blair Assistant

Chief Counsel

ORAL

DECISION OF THE

IMMIGRATION

JUDGE

The respondent is a female, Salvador,

citizen and national of El

who was placed in removal proceedings when a Notice to Immigration Court. The respondent

Appear was filed with the appeared

at a Master Calendar,

and denied all of the allegations

and denied removability. Notice to Appear. 2006 at 1:30 p.m.

The Court marked as Exhibit 1 the

The matter was set for hearing on April 25, The Court marks that notice as Exhibit 2. I-213. The

Government presented an 3. The respondent,

The Court marks that as Exhibit

having failed to appear at the hearing on The Court marked

April 24th,

was found removable in absentia. 4. The respondent, 1 on July

that as Exhibit

8,

2010,

filed a


motion to reopen. Court

5. The The

The Court will mark that as Exhibit 19, 2010.

granted the motion to reopen on Oct6ber The

Court will mark that as Exhibit 6. to suppress and exclude evidence. Exhibit 16, 2010

respondent

filed a motion

The Court will mark that as

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

7.

e r the Court, orders the having found that the respondent removed

The ourt denied the motion

o sup :ss on J.. i;;-:?.'

-is

December

The respondent has therefore, removable,

filed no application for relief; respondent

from the United States

to El Salvador. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the respondent be removed from the

United States to El

Salvador.

Un

States

Immigration

Judge

A 200 123

950

March

15,

2011


CERTIF ICATE PAGE

'

hereby

certify

that

the

attached

proceeding

before

JUDGE DAVID W.

CROSLAND,

in the matter of: ROSIBEL PAZ-AVALOS

KRISSIA

A 200 123 950 Baltimore, is an accurate, the Executive original for Maryland

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

verbatim transcript of the recording as provided by Office for Immigration Review file of and the that this is Executive the

transcript

thereof for the

Office

Immigration

Review.

a e Reporting,

Whitlock,

Transcrib r Inc.

May 17,

(completion date)

2011

By

that a Sony BEC/T-147, 4-channel transcriber or equivalent and/or CD, as described in Section C, paragraph C. 3. 3.2 of the contract, was used to transcribe the Record of Proceeding shown in the above paragraph.

submission

of

this

CERTIFICATE

PAGE,

the

Contractor certifies