Jose Monroy-Perdomo v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 508 F. App'x 642 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ARMANDO MONROY- No. 12-70435
PERDOMO,
Agency No. A088-889-834
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2013 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Jose Armando Monroy-Perdomo, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional challenges
to removal orders, Lopez-Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.
2008), and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand,
Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition
for review.
Even assuming that the allegedly unlawful search of Monroy-Perdomo’s
residence and his subsequent arrest was an egregious violation of his constitutional
rights, the agency did not err in concluding that there was substantial independent
evidence in the record to establish that he was nonetheless subject to removal as
charged. See Hoonsilapa v. INS, 575 F.2d 735, 738 (9th Cir. 1978), modified by
586 F.2d 755 (9th Cir. 1978) (“[T]he mere fact that a Fourth Amendment illegality
directs attention to a particular suspect does not require exclusion of evidence
subsequently unearthed from independent sources.”)
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Monroy-Perdomo’s motion
to remand to apply for voluntary departure, where he had the opportunity to apply
for voluntary departure before the IJ and he did not claim that ineffective
assistance of counsel prevented him from applying. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1);
Magallanes-Damian v. INS, 783 F.2d 931, 934 (9th Cir. 1986) (“petitioners are
2 12-70435
generally bound by the conduct of their attorneys, including admissions made by
them, absent egregious circumstances.”)
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-70435