Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 716.0

524US2

Unit: $U97

[09-06-00 19:37:28] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 666 (1998)

671

Opinion of the Court

tic proceeding, even if the witness has no valid fear of a crim-
119 F. 3d 122 (1997). We
inal prosecution in this country.
granted certiorari, 522 U. S. 1072 (1998), to resolve a conﬂict
among the Circuits on this issue 2 and now reverse.

II

The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment
provides that “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any crim-
inal case to be a witness against himself.” U. S. Const.,
Amdt. 5. Resident aliens such as Balsys are considered
“persons” for purposes of the Fifth Amendment and are en-
titled to the same protections under the Clause as citizens.
See Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U. S. 590, 596 (1953).
The parties do not dispute that the Government seeks to
“compel” testimony from Balsys that would make him “a wit-
ness against himself.” The question is whether there is a
risk that Balsys’s testimony will be used in a proceeding that
is a “criminal case.”

Balsys agrees that the risk that his testimony might sub-
ject him to deportation is not a sufﬁcient ground for assert-
ing the privilege, given the civil character of a deportation
proceeding. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U. S. 1032,
If, however, Balsys could demonstrate
1038–1039 (1984).

2 See United States v. Gecas, 120 F. 3d 1419 (CA11 1997) (en banc) (hold-
ing that the privilege cannot be invoked based on fear of prosecution
abroad); United States v. (Under Seal), 794 F. 2d 920 (CA4) (same), cert.
denied sub nom. Araneta v. United States, 479 U. S. 924 (1986); In re Par-
ker, 411 F. 2d 1067 (CA10 1969) (same), vacated as moot, 397 U. S. 96
(1970).

We have granted certiorari in cases raising this question twice before
but did not reach its merits in either case. See Zicarelli v. New Jersey
Comm’n of Investigation, 406 U. S. 472 (1972) (ﬁnding that because the
petitioner did not face a “real and substantial” risk of foreign prosecution,
it was unnecessary to decide whether the privilege can be asserted based
on fear of foreign prosecution); Parker v. United States, 397 U. S. 96 (1970)
(per curiam) (vacating and remanding with instructions to dismiss as
moot).