A Pair of CA2 Decisions on the Exclusionary Rule: Pretzantzin v. Holder; Sicajau Cotzojay v. Holder

"We are persuaded that the facts as alleged by Sicajau portray an egregious Fourth Amendment violation requiring application of the exclusionary rule. ... the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals is hereby VACATED and REMANDED. On remand, the Government bears the burden of proof to show that ICE officers obtained voluntary consent to enter the home and Sicajau’s bedroom." - Sicajau Cotzojay v. Holder, July 31, 2013.

"[W]e remand this case for the BIA to reach the issue of whether Government agents seized evidence of alienage from Petitioners in the course of committing an egregious Fourth Amendment violation. Should any questions over the nature of the constitutional violation linger, we direct the agency to the opinion issued in a companion case also decided today, which found an egregious constitutional violation on facts very similar to those in this case. See Doroteo Sicajau Cotzojay v. Holder, No. 11-4916-ag, – F.3d –, – (2d Cir. 2013)." - Pretzantzin v. Holder, July 31, 2013.

[Hats off to Anne Pilsbury, Heather Y. Axford, Nancy Morawetz and Nikki Reisch!]