Sebastian Quintero-Huerta v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SEBASTIAN QUINTERO-HUERTA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73537
Agency No. A098-761-914
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Sebastian Quintero-Huerta, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to suppress
evidence and his request to terminate proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8
FILED
MAR 02 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-73537 2
U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo. See United
States v. Jones, 286 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not err in denying the motion to suppress. The exclusionary
rule does not generally apply in immigration proceedings. See INS v. Lopez-
Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1050-51 (1984). We have held, however, that it does bar
the introduction of evidence obtained through “egregious violations” of the Fourth
Amendment. See Orhorhaghe v. INS, 38 F.3d 488, 493 (9th Cir. 1994). An officer
acts egregiously when he “committ[s] the violation deliberately or by conduct a
reasonable officer should have known would violate the Constitution.” Id.
Quintero-Huerta does not contend that the officers here deliberately violated his
Fourth Amendment rights. Nor should a reasonable officer have known that the
Anacortes checkpoint was unconstitutional. See United States v. Martinez-Fuerte,
428 U.S. 543, 96 S.Ct. (1976). Thus, even if there was a violation, an issue we do
not decide, the motion was properly denied.
The record does not support Quintero-Huerta’s contention that the
government violated either 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(b)(1) or INA § 287(a)(2).
Furthermore, Quintero-Huerta admitted his unlawful presence prior to his arrest.
United States v. Calderon-Medina, 591 F.2d 529, 531 (9th Cir. 1979) (A violation

-- 2 of 3 --

10-73537 3
of an INS regulation invalidates a deportation proceeding only if “the regulation
serves a purpose of benefit to the alien” and “the violation prejudiced interests of
the alien which were protected by the regulation.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --