FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIR RAIHAN ALI, No. 07-75031
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-251-988
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Mir Raihan Ali, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de
novo constitutional challenges to removal orders, and review for substantial
*
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).
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Lopez-Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d
1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Even assuming that Ali’s allegedly unlawful arrest and detention was an
egregious violation of his constitutional or regulatory rights, the agency did not err
in concluding that there was substantial independent evidence in the record to
establish that he nonetheless was subject to removal as charged. See Hoonsilapa v.
INS, 575 F.2d 735, 738 (9th Cir.), modified by 586 F.2d 755 (9th Cir. 1978) (the
mere fact of a Fourth Amendment illegality does not require exclusion of evidence
unearthed from independent sources).
To the extent Ali contends that the independent source doctrine should not
apply to immigration proceedings because it would allow the alleged violations of
his constitutional rights to go “unpunished,” this argument is unpersuasive. See
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 443 (1984) (the purpose of the exclusionary rule is
to “put the [government actors] in the same, not a worse, position that they would
have been in if no . . . misconduct had occurred”) (emphasis in original).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 07-75031