Jacinto Acevedo-Rojas sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that upheld an immigration judge's orders denying his motion to suppress evidence and rejecting his applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. The petitioner argued that the Form I-213, which recorded his arrest, was unreliable and that the officers acted unconstitutionally. He also challenged the legal effect of the Notice to Appear and claimed the agency's denial of relief was based on incorrect factual findings regarding his credibility and intent. The case turned on whether the court had the authority to review these factual and procedural issues and whether the evidence supporting his arrest was legally sufficient to deny suppression.
The panel addressed three distinct issues. First, the court rejected challenges to the legal effect of the Notice to Appear, ruling that these arguments were unexhausted because the petitioner failed to raise them before the Board of Immigration Appeals, citing Umana-Escobar v. Garland. Second, regarding the motion to suppress, the court applied de novo review but found that the record did not support a prima facie case of unreliability or egregious constitutional violation. The arresting officer testified that the arrest was based on a warrant for the petitioner's brother, and the officers reasonably mistook the petitioner for the brother in a car. The court noted that the petitioner's affidavit did not contradict the Form I-213's record of the officers' actions. Third, the court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), courts cannot review judgments regarding the granting of relief based on purely factual determinations, such as credibility and subjective intent to deceive, as confirmed by Patel v. Garland.
The petitioner remains subject to removal without judicial review of his credibility findings or the factual basis for the denial of cancellation of removal. The decision reinforces the jurisdictional bar on reviewing factual determinations in immigration relief cases and clarifies that procedural arguments regarding the Notice to Appear must be exhausted before the BIA to be considered by the courts. The denial of the suppression motion means the evidence in the Form I-213 stands as valid, leaving the petitioner's removal order intact.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download