Antonio Guerrero-Lopez v. William Barr ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 16 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTONIO GUERRERO-LOPEZ, No. 15-73115
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-880-166
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 12, 2019**
San Francisco, California
Before: GOULD, BEA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Antonio Guerrero-Lopez appeals the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order of
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). Reviewing de novo,
Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2005), we deny Guerrero-
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Lopez’s petition for review.
Guerrero-Lopez is a native and citizen of Mexico and a legal permanent
resident of the United States. In 2005, when Guerrero-Lopez was trying to cross
the border in his car, authorities asked him to go to secondary inspection. There,
upon questioning, Guerrero-Lopez admitted to attempting to smuggle
undocumented aliens into the United States from Mexico. He contends that,
during his questioning, the immigration officer did not advise him of his rights
under 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c). Guerrero-Lopez appeals his order of removal on the
basis that his statements made during questioning at secondary inspection should
have been suppressed because he wasn’t advised of his rights.
Guerrero-Lopez’s statements during his questioning at secondary inspection
were admissible in subsequent immigration proceedings. Because Guerrero-Lopez
had not yet been placed in formal immigration proceedings, the immigration
officials were not required to inform him of his rights under 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c).
Samayoa-Martinez v. Holder, 558 F.3d 897, 901–02 (9th Cir. 2009).
The admission of Guerrero-Lopez’s statements did not violate his Fifth
Amendment right against self-incrimination. Noncitizens are entitled to the same
protections against self-incrimination as citizens. United States v. Balsys, 524 U.S.
666, 671 (1998). However, an official’s failure to give a Miranda-style warning
does not preclude the use of statements obtained during a custodial interrogation in
2
a removal proceeding. See, e.g., United States v. Solano-Godines, 120 F.3d 957,
960 (9th Cir. 1997).
PETITION DENIED.
3