U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2009

Violante-Gomez v. Holder

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided July 28, 2009 · Schroeder, Thomas, Wardlaw

329 F. App'x 766

Counsel

Jan Joseph Bejar, Esquire, Law Offices of Jan Joseph Bejar A Professional Law Corporation, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner., Robbin Kinmonth Blaya, Esquire, Trial, Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Gregory Darrell Mack, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, District Director, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

Luis Violante-Gomez, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo whether evidence deriving from an illegal search is sufficiently tainted to require suppression, United States v. Johns, 891 F.2d 243, 244 (9th Cir. 1989), and we deny the petition for review.

Violante-Gomez’s contention that the I-130 visa petition and associated documents in the record demonstrating his alienage should have been suppressed as the fruits of his subsequent illegal arrest is unavailing. See Hoonsilapa v. INS, 575 F.2d 735, 738 (9th Cir.), modified by 586 F.2d 755 (9th Cir. 1978) (“It is well settled in this circuit that the mere fact that Fourth Amendment illegality directs attention to a *767particular suspect does not require exclusion of evidence subsequently unearthed from independent sources.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.