Lopez-Rodriguez v. Mukasey
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
636 F.3d 1012 (2008)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
In 2000, the Immigration and Nationalization Service (INS) was informed that a 17-year-old female named Fabiola Gastelum-Lopez (Gastelum) (plaintiff) was fraudulently using a birth certificate belonging to a United States citizen in order to obtain employment. Without a warrant, three INS agents went to the address supplied by the tip. Gastelum later testified that she did not permit the agents to come into the house, but that they pushed the door open and entered. Once inside the home, the agents questioned Gastelum and her aunt, Luz Lopez-Rodriguez (Lopez) (plaintiff) (collectively Plaintiffs), regarding their countries of birth. Plaintiffs were arrested and taken into federal custody. While in custody, Plaintiffs admitted to being native citizens of Mexico who were in the United States illegally. Thereafter, the INS initiated proceedings to remove Plaintiffs from the United States. During their joint removal proceeding, Plaintiffs requested that all documentation pertaining to their confession be suppressed. The immigration judge ordered Plaintiffs removed from the country and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. Plaintiffs filed a petition against Attorney General Michael Mukasey (defendant) (hereafter the Government) in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, appealing the BIA’s decision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Canby, J.)
Concurrence (Bybee, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.