Sanchez v. Sessions
9th Cir.; 14-71768 The court of appeals granted a petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. The court held that the Coast…
September 05, 2017 at 05:30 PM
4 minute read
9th Cir.;
14-71768
The court of appeals granted a petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. The court held that the Coast Guard's egregious violation of an individual's Fourth Amendment rights warranted suppression of the resulting documents that were used against him at removal proceedings; further, the officers' violation of immigration regulations warranted the termination of removal proceedings.
Mexican citizen Enrique Sanchez entered the U.S. without inspection in 1988, when he was 17 years old. In 2004, he United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) granted Sanchez Family Unity Benefits, which allowed him to reside and work in the U.S.. Those benefits expired in 2006. Sanchez's application for an extension of benefits was denied in 2009 due to three misdemeanor California Veh. Code violations. Sanchez nonetheless remaining in the country. In 2010, Sanchez and some Latino friends went out fishing using Sanchez's small pleasure boat. When the engine died not far from shore, they called the U.S. Coast Guard for assistance. The responding Coast Guard officers towed Sanchez's boat back to the harbor. Upon arriving, however, the officers detained and frisked Sanchez and his friends, and demanded that they hand over their identifications and belongings. Sanchez handed his driver's license, which gave both his name and local address. Without any other information, the Coast Guard officers notified U.S. Customs and Border Protection to report “the possibility of 4 undocumented worker aliens.” Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers thereafter detained and interrogated Sanchez, strip searched him, and retained his identification and wallet. After releasing Sanchez, a CBP officer prepared a Form I-213 (Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien) for Sanchez. The Form I-213 included Sanchez's admission that he was undocumented and had entered the United States without inspection. The Form I-213 also stated that the Coast Guard officers had detained Sanchez based on their suspicion that he was an “undocumented worker alien.” Nine months later, Sanchez was served with a notice to appear for removal proceedings.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Courts Announce Closures in Observance of Jimmy Carter National Mourning Day
2 minute read'Erroneous Assumption'?: Apple Challenges DOJ Antitrust Remedy in Google Search Monopoly Case
3 minute read'Appropriate Relief'?: Google Offers Remedy Concessions in DOJ Antitrust Fight
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Restoring Trust in the Courts Starts in New York
- 2'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 3Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 4Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
- 5Michael Halpern, Beloved Key West Attorney, Dies at 72
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250