
    Lorena Santos ADAME, Petitioner, v. Dana J. BOENTE, Acting Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
    No. 16-1562
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: January 30, 2017
    Filed: February 8, 2017
    Daniel Vondra, Cole & Vondra, Iowa City, IA, for Petitioner
    Scott Baniecke, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Bloomington, MN, Karen Yolanda Drummond, Carl H. McIntyre, Don George Scroggin, Trial Attorney, Claire Workman, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Greg Jensen, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Omaha, NE, Oil Oil, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Dana J, Boente is automatically substituted for his predecessor, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).
    
   PER CURIAM.

Lorena Santos Adame, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to suppress evidence and granting her voluntary departure in lieu of removal. Adame asserted that the evidence should have been suppressed because the traffic stop that led to the discovery of her immigration status and removal proceedings amounted to an egregious violation of her constitutional rights.

Assuming for the sake of analysis that an egregious constitutional violation may justify suppression of evidence in the immigration context, see Puc-Ruiz v. Holder, 629 F.3d 771, 777-78 (8th Cir. 2010), the record does not support Adame’s claim that the traffic stop was such an egregious violation. The police officer who stopped Adame had probable cause to believe she was driving while barred, in violation of Iowa Code § 321.561, based on his running the vehicle’s license plates through the National Crime Information Center, determining the registered owner was barred from driving, and confirming that Adame matched the description of the registered owner. See United States v. Linkous, 285 F.3d 716, 719 (8th Cir. 2002); cf. United States v. Chartier, 772 F.3d 539, 543 (8th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, we deny the petition. See Martinez Carcamo v. Holder, 713 F.3d 916, 921 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review).  