杏十八新茶分享

 

Gonzaga-Ortega v. Holder

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Immigration
  • Date Filed: 09-14-2012
  • Case #: 07-74361
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Judge Clifton for the Court; Circuit Judge Murguia and District Judge Collins

A final administrative determination that a lawful permanent resident (鈥淟PR鈥) 鈥渆ngaged in illegal activity鈥 while outside the United States is not required for Border officers to treat the LPR as an 鈥渁pplicant for admission,鈥 and thus as not entitled to counsel during primary or secondary inspection.

Francisco Gonzaga-Ortega (鈥淕onzaga鈥) is a lawful permanent resident (鈥淟PR鈥). When returning from Mexico, he was detained at the border and admitted to trying to bring his alien niece into the United States. Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings. At a merits hearing, the Immigration Judge (鈥淚J鈥) found that Gonzaga engaged in illegal activity after departing the U.S. for trying to smuggle his niece across the border. As a result, the IJ deemed him an 鈥渁pplicant for admission,鈥 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 搂 1101(a)(13)(C)(iii), and denied him admission. Under 8 C.F.R. 搂 292.5(b), an 鈥渁pplicant for admission鈥 is not entitled to representation during inspection, so, the IJ denied the motion to suppress Gonzaga鈥檚 confession at the border, found him inadmissible, and ordered him removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals (鈥淏IA鈥) dismissed Gonzaga鈥檚 appeal of the order. Gonzaga petitioned the Ninth Circuit to review the BIA鈥檚 decision. In agreement, the Ninth Circuit reiterated that (1) the IJ and the BIA rejected Gonzaga鈥檚 contention that his confession was coerced, citing 鈥淕onzaga鈥檚 own statements in the transcribed interview that he had been treated 鈥榝ine鈥 and that he made his statements 鈥榲oluntarily鈥欌; (2) the IJ characterized Gonzaga鈥檚 28-hour detention as brief, noted no signs of physical abuse, no indication that Gonzaga鈥檚 statements were false, and no denial of criminal involvement; and (3) the BIA found no support for Gonzaga鈥檚 claims that he was denied a fair hearing or prejudiced by his admissions. Thus, because Gonzaga was properly deemed an 鈥渁pplicant for admission,鈥 the Ninth Circuit concluded that he was not entitled to counsel during primary or secondary inspection, and the IJ and BIA did not err in considering his confession. PETITION DENIED.

Advanced Search


Back to Top