Kasie Mabel Torres-Navarro, a/k/a Casey Mabel Torres-Navarro v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KASIE MABEL TORRES-NAVARRO,
a/k/a Casey Mabel Torres-Navarro,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73040
Agency No. A206-683-887
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 7, 2019
San Francisco, California
Before: PAEZ and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and FEINERMAN,** District Judge.
Kasie Mabel Torres-Navarro, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision. The BIA dismissed
her appeal of an immigration judge (“IJ”) decision denying her motion to suppress
her identity documents (a Honduran passport and a Honduran identification card)
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Gary Feinerman, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
FILED
MAR 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
and the Form I-213 on which border patrol agents recorded their observations and
her post-arrest admissions. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The
BIA conducted its own analysis without adopting or incorporating the IJ’s
decision, so “our review is limited to the BIA’s decision.” Maldonado v. Lynch,
786 F.3d 1155, 1160 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (citation omitted). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Absent an egregious Fourth Amendment violation, “the exclusionary rule
generally does not apply to civil deportation proceedings.” Sanchez v. Sessions,
904 F.3d 643, 649 (9th Cir. 2018). Applying de novo review, we find that Torres-
Navarro has failed to carry her burden to show an egregious Fourth Amendment
violation. See id. at 649, 653. Her declaration does not deny the border patrol
agent’s submission, reflected on the Form I-213, that the agent apprehended her
within 25 minutes of her crossing the U.S.-Mexico border by rafting across the Rio
Grande River. See 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) (permitting immigration officers to arrest
anyone whom they have “reason to believe” is entering the country illegally).
Despite the agent’s failure to ascertain Torres-Navarro’s name, place of birth, or
country of citizenship before arresting her, Torres-Navarro’s arrest was lawful
under those circumstances—or, at a minimum, not an egregious violation of the
Fourth Amendment. See Martinez-Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029, 1034 (9th
Cir. 2011) (noting that a Fourth Amendment violation is “egregious” if it is

-- 2 of 4 --

3
“deliberate” or contravenes “clearly established” Fourth Amendment doctrine “in
the particular context at issue”) (citation omitted). Accordingly, there is no basis to
suppress the evidence, including the Honduran passport and ID card, taken from
her upon her arrest.
We next conclude on de novo review that Torres-Navarro has failed to show
that the conditions of her two-day confinement or the conduct of her post-arrest
interview so deprived her of her rational intellect and free will as to violate the
Fifth Amendment. See Gonzaga-Ortega v. Holder, 736 F.3d 795, 800, 804 (9th
Cir. 2013). Moreover, Torres-Navarro has not identified a material contradiction
between the averments in her declaration, on the one hand, and the Form I-213’s
account of her arrest and interview, on the other, that would undermine the Form I-
213’s reliability or otherwise make its admission fundamentally unfair. See
Sanchez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 1107, 1109 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). Her related
argument—that the credibility of the Form I-213’s preparer should be assessed
under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)—is misplaced because that provision would apply
only if she were seeking asylum or some other relief from removal. And Torres-
Navarro has not shown that the IJ or the BIA abused their discretion in ruling
against her despite the government’s failure to oppose her motion to suppress or
her appeal. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010).
We are without jurisdiction to reach Torres-Navarro’s final contention—that

-- 3 of 4 --

4
her identity documents were unauthenticated, uncertified, and untranslated, and
thus inadmissible—because the BIA correctly held that she failed to raise that issue
before the IJ. See Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1041 (9th Cir. 2005) (en
banc). Accordingly, that unexhausted part of her petition is dismissed. See
Alvarado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 1121, 1127 & n.5 (9th Cir. 2014).
DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.

-- 4 of 4 --