NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Na me: 13a0662n.06 No. 12-4160 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT ROSENDO B EL TRAN-RODRI GUEZ ; MARGARI TA NUN EZ -B EL TRON, Petitioners,

v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., Attorney Gene ral, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW FROM THE U

NI TED STATES BO ARD OF I MMI GRATI ON APPEAL S

BEF ORE: BOG GS and SI L ER, Circuit J udg es; DOWD, District J udg e. *

PER CURI AM. Rosend o Be l t ran-Rodrigue z and Marg arita Nunez-B eltron petition for revie w of an order of the Boa rd of I mmigration Appea ls (B I A) that aff irmed an immigra tion judge ’s (I J ) orde r of r emoval. The petitioners are natives and citizens of Mexi co. They enter ed the United States in 1997, and removal proce eding s wer e ini tiat ed aga inst them in 2002. The petiti oners moved to suppress the I -213 forms t h at s et forth the fac tual basis for their remova bility

. The I J denied the motion without a hear ing a

nd order ed the pe titioners removed to Mexico. On appea l, the peti t i o n er s ra i s e two arguments: (1) the I J err ed by ref using to conduct a suppression hearing and refusing to ex clude the I -213 forms on the basis that the petit ioners were

The Honora

ble David D. Dow d, J r., United States District Judge f or the Norther

n District * of Ohio, sitting by

desig nation.No. 12-4160

Beltran-Rodriguez v. H

older interviewe d by the arr esting off i ce r in violation of both 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(a) and their rig ht to due proce ss; and (2) the I J lacke d jurisdiction over the case beca use the notices to appea

r did not contain the time and date of the hear ing as require d by 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) (1)( G)(i)

. Where, as here , the BI A does not summarily aff

irm or adopt the I J ’s rea soning and provides an explanation for its decision,

we revie w the BIA’s decision as the final ag ency deter mination. Ilic-Lee v. Mukase y , 507 F.3d 1044, 1047 (6th Cir. 2007). To the extent that the BI A adopted the I J ’s rea soning, we also revie w the I J ’s decision. Khalil i v. Holder , 557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009). We rev i ew l ega l co nclusions de

novo. Khozhaynova v. H older , 641 F.3d 187, 191 ( 6th Cir. 2011). The BIA proper ly aff

irmed the I J ’s denial of the suppression motion beca use 8 C .F.R. § 287.3(a) does not cre ate a ny enfor cea ble substantive or proc edura l rig hts for a pa rty in a civil or criminal proce eding

. See 8 C.F.R. § 287.12; Navarro-Chalan v. Ashcroft , 359 F.3d 19, 23 (1st Cir. 2004). Fur

ther, the arr est in g o ffice r’s interview of the petitioners was not an eg reg ious constitutional violation that resulted in fundame ntal unfairne ss. See INS v. Lopez-Me ndoza , 468 U.S. 1032, 1050- 51 & n.5 (1984); Miguel v. INS , 359 F.3d 408, 411 n . 3 (6 t h C i r. 2004). The BI A also proper ly deter mined that the alleg ed defic iencies in the notices to appea r did not deprive the I J of jurisdiction beca use the petitioners wer e subsequently notified in writing of the time and date of the hear ing. See Popa v. Holder , 571 F.3d 890, 895-96 (9th Cir. 2009); Gomez-Palacios v. Holder , 560 F.3d 354, 359 (5th Cir. 2009); Dababneh v . Gonzales , 471 F.3d 806, 809 ( 7th Cir. 2006). Acc ording ly , we de ny

the petition for re view.

-2-