## Facts

- Immigration agents received a tip that a young woman named “Fabiola” was using another person’s U.S. birth certificate to work and lived at a specified address in Fresno, California.
- Three agents went to the residence to investigate without obtaining a search warrant or arrest warrant.
- Entry into the home was contested; the Immigration Judge found the agents entered without consent.
- After entering, agents questioned Fabiola Gastelum-Lopez and Luz Lopez-Rodriguez about identity and birthplace; Gastelum initially claimed Texas birth but could not provide details and then admitted she was “Fabiola,” after which agents handcuffed her.
- Agents arrested Gastelum and arrested Lopez on suspicion of unlawful presence.
- While the petitioners were in custody, agents questioned them about country of origin and immigration status and prepared Forms I-213 for each petitioner and a sworn statement from Gastelum.
- In removal proceedings, the government relied on the I-213s and Gastelum’s sworn statement as its evidence of alienage; no other alienage evidence was introduced.

## Issues

1. Whether a warrantless, nonconsensual entry into a home by immigration agents, followed by questioning and arrests, constituted an egregious Fourth Amendment violation warranting suppression in civil removal proceedings.
2. Whether the Forms I-213 and Gastelum’s sworn statement were suppressible as fruit of the unlawful entry and detention, and, if suppressed, whether the remaining record could support removability.

## Decision

- The court granted the petition for review, reversed the Board of Immigration Appeals, and remanded.
- It held the warrantless, nonconsensual home entry was an egregious Fourth Amendment violation for purposes of suppression in removal proceedings.
- It ordered suppression of the Forms I-213 and Gastelum’s sworn statement because they were obtained directly as a result of the unlawful entry and ensuing custody.
- Because the suppressed documents were the only evidence of alienage presented, the government could not sustain the removal orders on the existing record.

## Legal Principles

- Although the exclusionary rule generally does not apply in civil removal proceedings, suppression is required when evidence is obtained through an egregious (or widespread) Fourth Amendment violation.
- Warrantless, nonconsensual entry into a home is presumptively unreasonable absent a recognized justification (e.g., consent, exigency, or a warrant).
- Statements and derivative records obtained through exploitation of an unlawful home entry and seizure may be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree when the causal connection is direct and not attenuated.
- When the government’s proof of alienage in removal proceedings depends solely on suppressed evidence, the resulting removability determination cannot stand on that record.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit required suppression of immigration agents’ I-213s and a sworn statement obtained after a warrantless, nonconsensual home entry, and it reversed and remanded because the government offered no other admissible evidence of alienage to support removal.


Lopez-Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2008)