Adelberto Omar Silva-Angon v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADELBERTO OMAR SILVA-ANGON,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73123
Agency No. A075-121-249
MEMORANDUM*
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.
Adelberto Omar Silva-Angon, 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”) order of removal and denial of his 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).
FILED
AUG 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The BIA did not err in concluding that the evidence of Silva-Angon’s alienage
that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) obtained during the raid of Sun
Valley Floral Farms was not obtained in violation of Silva-Angon’s constitutional
rights or any laws or regulations. Silva-Angon was not entitled to advisement of his
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 him. See Samayoa-
Martinez v. Holder, 558 F.3d 897, 901–02 (9th Cir. 2009). Nor does Silva-Angon
present evidence compelling the conclusion that the administrative search warrant
pursuant to which ICE conducted the raid egregiously violated his Fourth
Amendment rights by improperly authorizing his 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, Silva-Angon
presents no evidence compelling the conclusion that conditions during the raid or at
McKinleyville Station were so coercive that Silva-Angon’s “will was overborne,”
thus admitting the Form I-213 would not violate his Fifth Amendment rights. See
Ortiz v. Uribe, 671 F.3d 863, 869 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --