### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH 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 o f i mmigration agents’ egregious conduct in violation of her Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights; and U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f Ap p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Sep tem ber 2 1, 2 012 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat thisop inion sho uld not * be publish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-60405 Document: 00511995471 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/21/2012No. 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 d e nying Torres-Hernandez’s motion to suppress. Ev e n 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 10 4 3 ; U n i t e d 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 . H o lde r , 3 1 3 F

. Ap p ’x 690, 692-95 (5th Cir. 2009) (affir m i n g d e nial of motion to suppress by 14-year-old unaccompanied alien who alleged that he answered question s b e c ause he was fearful and confused; officer was irritated and angry; he was made to sign papers he did not understand; and if he h a d k n own he could remain silent, he would have done so and called his mother). 1 Torres-Hernandez has not shown that the BIA im p r o p e rly made fact findings or substituted its judgment for that of the IJ concerning the

vo lu ntariness of her actions or statements. Neither the IJ nor the BIA ba s e d their decisions on the voluntariness o f T o rres-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

Altho ugh Go nza les- Reye s is unpub lis hed, it is per sua sive autho rity. See Uni ted States 1
v. Dav is , 602 F.3d643 , 650 (5th Cir

. 2010)

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

that the record reflected that agents confirmed Torres-Hernandez was an illegal alie n th r o u gh 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

c o n s i d e red and rejected her argument, finding that the form was admissible because she testified that she answered the questions truthfully and b ec ause her testimony did n o t e s t ablish that the information in the form was inaccurate. The IJ and BIA found there wer e n o e gregious 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 a c c u r a cy 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 n o t s h o w n that the IJ and BIA erred in finding that the form was admis s ib le 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