Martha Romero-Yanez v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTHA LAURA ROMERO-YANEZ, No. 13-73133
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-121-247
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 9, 2019**
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Martha Laura Romero-Yanez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal and denial of her motion to
suppress. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The BIA did not err in concluding that the evidence of Romero-Yanez’s
alienage that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) obtained during the
raid of Sun Valley Floral Farms was not obtained in violation of Romero-Yanez’s
constitutional rights or any laws or regulations. Romero-Yanez was not entitled to
advisement of her rights under 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c) because the raid, and the
subsequent questioning at McKinleyville Coast Guard Station (“McKinleyville
Station”), took place well before formal removal proceedings were commenced
against her. See Samayoa-Martinez v. Holder, 558 F.3d 897, 901–02 (9th Cir. 2009).
Nor does Romero-Yanez present evidence compelling the conclusion that the
administrative search warrant pursuant to which ICE conducted the raid egregiously
violated her Fourth Amendment rights by improperly authorizing her arrest. See
Orhorhaghe v. I.N.S., 38 F.3d 488, 493 (9th Cir. 1994); Int’l Molders and Allied
Workers’ Local Union No. 164 v. Nelson, 799 F.2d 547, 552–53 (9th Cir. 1986).
Finally, Romero-Yanez presents no evidence compelling the conclusion that
conditions during the raid or at McKinleyville Station were so coercive that Romero-
Yanez’s “will was overborne,” thus admitting the Form I-213 would not violate her
Fifth Amendment rights. See Ortiz v. Uribe, 671 F.3d 863, 869 (9th Cir. 2011)
(citation omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2