IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-60405

Summary Calendar

SANDY PAMELA TORRES-HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petitions for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A094 917 822

Before DeMOSS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sandy Pamela Torres-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

for review of the decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming

the denial of her motion to suppress and denying her motion for reconsideration. 

She argues that the BIA and Immigration Judge (IJ) erred in denying her

motion to suppress the Form I-213; that the form should have been suppressed

because it contained information obtained as a result of immigration agents’

egregious conduct in violation of her Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights; and

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 21, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-60405 Document: 00511995471 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/21/2012
No. 11-60405

that an immigration inspection was not proper because the Harlingen airport is

not the equivalent of the border. 

The BIA and IJ did not err in denying Torres-Hernandez’s motion to

suppress. Even if she had shown a constitutional violation, the airport

immigration agent obtained only her identity from her Texas identification card,

and her identity is not suppressible. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032,

1038-39 (1984). Further, Torres-Hernandez’s alienage and immigration status

were not suppressible as this information was obtained through an independent

search of the Traveler Enforcement Compliance System (TECS) after

immigration agents learned her identity. See id. at 1043; United States v.

Herrera-Ochoa, 245 F.3d 495, 498 & n. 4 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. RoqueVillanueva, 175 F.3d 345, 346 (5th Cir.1999). Further, the BIA and IJ did not

err in finding that the conduct of the immigration agents was not egregious. See

Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. at 1050-51; Gonzalez-Reyes v. Holder, 313F. App’x 690,

692-95 (5th Cir. 2009) (affirming denial of motion to suppress by 14-year-old

unaccompanied alien who alleged that he answered questions because he was

fearful and confused; officer was irritated and angry; he was made to sign papers

he did not understand; and if he had known he could remain silent, he would

have done so and called his mother). 

1

Torres-Hernandez has not shown that the BIA improperly made fact

findings or substituted its judgment for that of the IJ concerning the

voluntariness of her actions or statements. Neither the IJ nor the BIA based

their decisions on the voluntariness of Torres-Hernandez’s actions and

statements. The BIA considered Torres-Hernandez’s testimony that the airport

immigration agent “took” her Texas identification card and reasonably inferred

that the agent learned her identity from her identification card. The BIA found

Although Gonzales-Reyes is unpublished, it is persuasive authority. See United States 1

v. Davis, 602 F.3d 643, 650 (5th Cir. 2010).

2

Case: 11-60405 Document: 00511995471 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/21/2012
No. 11-60405

that the record reflected that agents confirmed Torres-Hernandez was an illegal

alien through a search of the TECS. The BIA did not make any improper fact

findings that were inconsistent with the IJ’s fact findings or unsupported by the

record.

Torres-Hernandez argues that the form was inadmissible in the absence

of the testimony of the maker because she challenged the accuracy of the form

and argued that the information was obtained under coercion or duress. The IJ

considered and rejected her argument, finding that the form was admissible

because she testified that she answered the questions truthfully and because her

testimony did not establish that the information in the form was inaccurate. 

The IJ and BIA found there were no egregious circumstances and implicitly

found that her statements were not obtained under coercion or duress. Although

Torres-Hernandez challenged the voluntariness of her actions and statements,

she did not challenge the accuracy of the alienage and immigration status

information in the form. Because the decisions of the IJ and the BIA were based

on her alienage and immigration status which she did not show was inaccurate,

she has not shown that the IJ and BIA erred in finding that the form was

admissible to prove her alienage and immigration status. See, e.g., Matter of

Barcenas, 19 I & N Dec. 609, 611 (BIA 1988).

PETITION DENIED. 

3

Case: 11-60405 Document: 00511995471 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/21/2012