novo legal determinations of the BIA, Carrillo-Gonzalez v. INS, 353 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition. Murillo-Ledesma contends that the statements he made to arresting officers regarding his alienage and the date and manner of his entry into the United States should have been suppressed by the IJ as fruit of an unlawful arrest. He further contends that he was denied a full and fair hearing because he was not permitted to present evidence concerning his unlawful arrest. These contentions fail because generally, the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule does not apply to administrative proceedings, and petitioner has not demonstrated that his case warrants an exception to the rule. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1040, 104 S.Ct. 3479, 82 L.Ed.2d 778 (1984) (<HOLDING>); Adamson v. CIR, 745 F.2d 541, 545-46 (9th
holding that the exclusionary rule generally does not apply to immigration proceedings holding that exclusionary rule does apply to civil forfeiture proceedings holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to proceedings other than criminal trials holding that exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to knockandannounce violations