Aziz v. Gonzales , 185 F. App'x 349 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 15, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60717
Summary Calendar
ASAD IQBAL ABDUL AZIZ
Petitioner
v.
ALBERTO R GONZALES, US ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A79 005 390
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Asad Iqbal Abdul Aziz, a native and citizen of Pakistan,
appeals from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmance of
the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order of deportation. This court
will review the decision of the IJ as the BIA relied upon it in
its decision. Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302. We review
factual conclusions for substantial evidence and questions of law
de novo. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir.
1996).
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 05-60717
-2-
Aziz argues that his due process rights were violated during
a National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS)**
interview. He argues that, in violation of 8 C.F.R. 287.3 (b) &
(c), he was neither advised of his right to remain silent nor
that the information he provided could be used against him at a
later proceeding. He concludes that the IJ erred in failing to
suppress the information that he provided at the NSEERS interview
and on his Form I-213 Record of a Deportable/Inadmissible Alien.
This court has previously held that “Miranda*** warnings are
not required in the deportation context, for deportation
proceedings are civil, not criminal in nature, and the Sixth
Amendment safeguards are not applicable.” See Bustos-Torres v.
INS, 898 F.2d 1053, 1056 (5th Cir. 1990).
Likewise, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable in
deportation proceedings. INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032,
1050 (1984); Ali v. Gonzalez, 440 F.3d 678, 681 (5th Cir. 2006).
To the extent that the Supreme Court has indicated that an
exception may exist for egregious conduct, Aziz’s argument on
this ground fails as he cannot demonstrate substantial prejudice.
See Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. at 1050-51; Ka Fung Chan v. INS, 634
F.2d 248, 258 (5th Cir. 1981). Aziz conceded at his removal
**
The NSEERS program permits the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) to monitor aliens “who may present elevated
national security concerns” because they hail from countries
associated with active terrorist organizations. See Ali v.
Gonzalez, 440 F.3d 678, 679 (5th Cir. 2006); 8 U.S.C. § 1303.
***
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
No. 05-60717
-3-
hearing to the facts in his Form I-213 which he seeks to
suppress. See Ali, 440 F.3d at 682.
Aziz challenges the validity of his Notice to Appear because
it was signed by the Interim District Director, who Aziz argues
was unauthorized since “Interim District Director” is not listed
in 8 C.F.R. § 239.1, which regulates who may issue a Notice to
Appear. Aziz’s argument is meritless as the statute allows for
another officer, such as the Interim District Director in Aziz’s
case, to act in the capacity of the District Director until the
position is permanently filled. See 8 C.F.R. § 239.1.
Accordingly, Aziz’s petition for review is DENIED.