INS v. Lopez-Mendoza is an immigration case of unlawful arrest and detention by the immigration officers. However, he did not dispute the evidence given on his account. On the other hand, Sanchez argued that since INS was holding him unlawfully, the evidence should not be used in the case. The evidence, he argued, was a result of the arrest. The argument seemed to suggest that the respondent was coerced into admitting that he entered the country illegally. Lopez, on the other hand, admitted his illegal entrance into the country. A decision by an immigration judge to deport them was overturned by the Courts of Appeal.

The court of appeal overturned the deportation of Sanchez and ordered the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to look into Lopez’s case. The decision by the court was a consequence of the review of the Fourth Amendment. The reversion of the deportation order for Sanchez was because the court thought that the fourth amendment was violated when Sanchez was arrested illegally. The court explained that the admittance of illegal entrance into the US was results of unlawful arrest, which, according to the exclusionary rule, should not be used in the case.

The determination of this case was completely wrong for the following reasons. First, a deportation case is meant to determine if a person is eligible to stay in the country. Its main intention is to end the continuance of illegal entrance rather than punish past offenders. The main reasoning behind determining any deportation case does not involve any application of any criminal law such as unlawful arrest. Secondly, the exclusionary rule does not apply to a deportation case, and, therefore, the exclusion of the evidence concerning Sanchez under the exclusionary rule was a wrong call made by the court. The admittance of illegal entry should have stood and be used as evidence in the case. Thirdly, Lopez defended himself suggesting that his summoning was illegal since he was unlawfully arrested. The court upheld his argument; however, the identity of a defendant in a civil case is not repressible as the product of an unlawful arrest. The fact that he was an illegal immigrant cannot be suppressed just because he was arrested unlawfully. Therefore, his argument that the case should be thrown away because of unlawful arrest does not stand.

The decision by BIA to stand by the deportation orders was right since the proceedings were meant to stop further illegal movement into the country. The court of appeals understanding and application of the fourth amendment was wrong. The court should have differentiatereinstate the earlier one made by the Board of Immigration Appeals.