Opinion ID: 1036952
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Petition for Review before the BIA

Text: The BIA affirmed the IJ’s ruling for the reasons stated by the IJ, specifically noting that, with regard to the denial of the motion to suppress, the Government’s evidence contradicted Silos’s testimony that he signed the statement on March 12. The BIA went on to state that, “[m]oreover, even if he was detained for more than 24 hours, there is no indication that the conditions were inhumane, that the delay was due to something other than information-gathering by the DHS, or that he was ‘brow-beaten’ into signing the statement. Therefore, the respondent failed to demonstrate that his answers to DHS’s questions were involuntary or coerced.” Finally, the BIA rejected Silos’s due process arguments with regard to the immigration proceedings before the IJ because Silos failed to demonstrate the requisite “substantial prejudice” resulting from: (1) the IJ’s denial of a continuance of the April 22, 2011 hearing because Silos was represented by substitute counsel after the motion was denied; (2) the presentation of Morales’s testimony at the hearing because Silos was given an opportunity to cross-examine the officer; and (3) the Government’s submission of documentary evidence, including a 1988 record of sworn statement and Silos’s criminal conviction record, because Silos knew about the documents.