ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Advanced search

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network


Chinese Immig. Daily


Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free

Immigration LLC.

< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

                           United States Court of Appeals
                                    Tenth Circuit
                                     JUL 27 2001
                                   PATRICK FISHER
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   TENTH CIRCUIT
         UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,        
                                          No. 00-2004
         MARIO MINJARES-ALVAREZ,          
                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the District of New Mexico
                              (D.C. No. CR. 99-159-LH)
         Lissa J. Gardner, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Stephen P. McCue,
         Public Defender, and Shari Lynn Allison, Research and Writing Specialist,
         her on briefs), Las Cruces, New Mexico.
         Sarah Y. Vogel, Assistant United States Attorney (Norman C. Bay, United
         Attorney, with her on brief), Las Cruces, New Mexico.
         Before EBEL, PORFILIO, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
         EBEL, Circuit Judge.
              Appellant Mario Minjares-Alvarez ("Minjares") challenges his

         under 8 U.S.C. . 1326 for illegally reentering the United States after being 

         deported to Mexico for an aggravated felony.  Minjares argues that we
         vacate his conviction because statements he made to a United States Border 

         Patrol agent, which were introduced by the prosecution at his trial, were

         Moreover, Minjares argues that his statements should have been excluded

         he was never informed of his right to consult with the Mexican consulate,

         provided by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Apr. 24, 1963,

         36, 21 U.S.T. 77-78, 101, 596 U.N.T.S. 261 (hereinafter "Vienna

         We AFFIRM Minjares's conviction.


                                   I. BACKGROUND

              On December 23, 1998, Dona Ana County, New Mexico sheriff's deputy 

         Guillermo Ruiz ("Deputy Ruiz") stopped Minjares for suspicion of driving

         intoxicated.  Deputy Ruiz observed a twelve-pack of beer, several empty

         bottles, and a partially consumed beer in the car with Minjares.  Deputy

         smelled alcohol in the car and on Minjares.  Although Minjares did not
have a 

         driver's license, he gave Deputy Ruiz his name and told Deputy Ruiz that he

         a Mexican citizen without immigration documents.  Deputy Ruiz ran a
check for 

         outstanding warrants and learned that an INS arrest warrant had been issued
for a 

         person matching Minjares's name and description.  Deputy Ruiz then placed 

         Minjares under arrest.  Deputy Ruiz decided not to administer a roadside

         test, however.  This was because Minjares did not appear to be significantly
         intoxicated, he was to be arrested in any case, and, given Minjares's
condition as 

         a paraplegic, Deputy Ruiz was unsure how to conduct the tests.

              The sheriff's department notified the United States Border Patrol

         Patrol") that Deputy Ruiz had arrested Minjares.  Deputy Ruiz then took 

         Minjares's keys and told him to remain in his own car until Border Patrol

         arrived.  Deputy Ruiz cited Minjares for having an open container of

         driving with a suspended license, and for a traffic infraction.

              Border Patrol Agent Desi D. DeLeon ("Agent DeLeon") responded to

         sheriff department's notification that it had Minjares under arrest.  Agent

         arrived on the scene, verified Minjares's identity, and ran a second check

         warrants which also came back positive.  Agent DeLeon asked Minjares his

         date of birth, citizenship, and whether he had previously been deported. 

         responded to each question, answering "yes" when asked if he had

         been deported.  Agent DeLeon then drove Minjares approximately 30
minutes to 

         a Border Patrol station without further questioning.

              At the Border Patrol station, Agent DeLeon read Minjares a form,

         in Spanish, that notified him of his rights to counsel and to remain silent. 

         Minjares signed the form and waived his rights in the presence of Agent

         and two other Border Patrol agents.  Agent DeLeon did not inform Minjares

         the Vienna Convention afforded him a right of access to a Mexican
consulate and 

         a right to consult with a consul.  Agent DeLeon interviewed Minjares, and
         Minjares signed a sworn statement that he had previously been deported and

         last entered the United States on March 31, 1998.  Agent DeLeon testified

         Minjares "was attentive, answering willingly without hesitation," that he did

         slur his speech or stumble, that he understood what was happening to him,

         that he never asked for a lawyer or sought to stop the interrogation. 

         was not handcuffed or placed in a cell prior to or during his interrogation,

         Agent DeLeon maintained a conversational tone of voice while speaking to 

         Minjares.  Agent DeLeon could not smell alcohol on Minjares and could 

         remember nothing that suggested Minjares was intoxicated during the 


              Minjares moved to suppress the statements he had made to police,

         two separate theories.  First, Minjares argued that his statements were not 

         voluntary.  Second, Minjares argued that his statements should be

         because he was never informed that he had a right to consult with consular 

         officials from Mexico pursuant to the Vienna Convention.  See 21 U.S.T. at

         Although Minjares acknowledges he understood his constitutional rights, he 

         testified at his suppression hearing that he would have had a better

         of the gravity of his situation had he known of his Vienna Convention

         Minjares also submitted a letter from Anibal Gomez-Toledo, the Consul for 

         Protection with the Mexican Consulate in El Paso, Texas, stating that he

         have advised Minjares of his rights under U.S. law and that, generally, he
         Mexican citizens who are arrested in the United States to assert those

         Minjares thus contends that he was prejudiced because the consul's advice

         have influenced him to stand on his constitutional rights rather than make

         incriminating statements that he now seeks to suppress.

              The district court denied Minjares's motion to suppress his statements, 

         specifically concluding that he was not intoxicated during the

         Further, it made a factual finding that Minjares would not have asserted his 

         consular rights had he known of them, and therefore held that he had not

         prejudice despite the Government's admitted violation of the Vienna

         Procedural History

              After the district court denied Minjares's motion to suppress, he was

         in a three-day jury trial beginning July 15, 1999.  A critical issue at trial

         whether Minjares had actually left the United States, or whether he was

         merely subject to an order of deportation that was never properly exercised. 

         rebut Minjares's evidence that he never actually left the United States after

         was ordered deported, the Government submitted Minjares's sworn
statement that 

         he had been deported and subsequently reentered the United States, as well

         (1)     The district court did not expressly address Minjares's more general 
         assertion that the totality of the circumstances - including the time of day,
         presence of armed and uniformed officers, and Minjares's own fatigue -
         his statements involuntary.  It is sufficient for the purpose of this analysis, 
         however, to note that Minjares's statements were admitted in spite of these 
         Agent DeLeon's testimony describing the interrogation.  The jury convicted 

         Minjares, and he was sentenced to 84 months in prison and ordered to pay a

         special assessment.

              Minjares now appeals that conviction on the ground that the trial judge 

         erred in denying his motion to suppress, and he requests this court to vacate

         conviction and order a new trial.

                              II.  STANDARD OF REVIEW
              "On appeal from a motion to suppress, we accept the district court's

         findings unless clearly erroneous, review questions of law de novo, and
view the 

         evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party."  United States

         Maden, 64 F.3d 1505, 1508 (10th Cir. 1995).  "The credibility of witnesses

         the weight to be given the evidence is the province of the district court." 

         States v. Patten, 183 F.3d 1190, 1193 (10th Cir. 1999).  We review de novo

         ultimate issue of whether a statement was voluntary, taking into account the 

         totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession.  See United States

         Nguyen, 155 F.3d 1219, 1222 (10th Cir. 1998); United States v. Glover,
104 F.3d 

         1570, 1579 (10th Cir. 1997).


                                 III.   DISCUSSION
         A.   Fifth Amendment Voluntariness

              Minjares's first assignment of error is that the district court erred in 

         refusing to suppress statements he made to Agent DeLeon of the Border

         After receiving testimony from Minjares, Agent DeLeon, and Deputy Ruiz,

         district court made a factual finding that Minjares was not intoxicated at the

         he waived his Fifth Amendment right to silence.  Further, the district court

         that Minjares "clearly knew" he did not have to talk to the Border Patrol

         without an attorney present.  The district court therefore denied Minjares's 


              Minjares contends that, given the totality of the circumstances, the

         court erred in concluding his statements were voluntary.  Specifically,

         argues that the district court's finding that he was not intoxicated when he 

         waived his rights was clearly erroneous.  Moreover, he contends that his 

         statements were coerced because he was arrested late at night after he had

         drinking, he was fatigued during and after his arrest, he was not given

         warnings for approximately three hours after his arrest, and the

         took place in the company of armed, uniformed officers.

              The Supreme Court recently held that the advisements first required by 

         Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), arise out of the constitution, and
that a 

         defendant's post-arrest statements must therefore be excluded unless the 

         defendant was first notified of his Miranda rights.  See Dickerson v. United 

         States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000).  Since Minjares did not receive any advisement
         his rights at the scene of his arrest, those statements he made prior to being 

         transported to the Border Patrol Station were inadmissible pursuant to

         and Miranda.  None of these statements, however, were submitted to the

         Therefore whatever deprivation of rights Minjares may have suffered at that

         did not affect his trial.(2)

              The Government did, however, enter into evidence the statements

         made during his interrogation at the Border Patrol station.  Minjares

         that he made these statements after Agent DeLeon had fully advised him of

         constitutional rights.  He contends, however, that the circumstances

         his waiver of rights was so coercive as to render his statements involuntary 

         despite the advisements.  We have stated:

              In determining whether a particular confession is coerced, we 
              consider the following factors: (1) the age, intelligence, and 
              education of the defendant; (2) the length of the detention; (3) the 
              length and nature of the questioning; (4) whether the defendant was 
              advised of [his] constitutional rights; and (5) whether the defendant 
              was subjected to physical punishment.
          Glover, 104 F.3d at 1579 (citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218,

         (1973)).  None of these factors supports Minjares's contention that his

         were involuntary.

              Nothing in the record demonstrates that the district court clearly erred in 

         concluding that Minjares was not intoxicated when he waived his rights. 

         officers testified that Minjares was lucid, that he was physically able to

         into and out of his wheelchair, and that he showed no signs of intoxication

         Agent DeLeon's interrogation.  Thus, the district court's finding is amply 

         supported.  Moreover, the evidence shows that Minjares was an adult high

         graduate with some college education.  Agent DeLeon conducted the

         in a polite and conversational manner.  The interrogation lasted only a few 

         minutes, and there is no allegation that Agent DeLeon ever threatened

         or made any promises in exchange for Minjares's statements.  Both Deputy

         and Agent DeLeon described Minjares as alert and attentive, and Agent

         testified that Minjares participated willingly throughout the interrogation. 

         Although Minjares testified during his suppression hearing, he said nothing

         rebut this evidence.  To the contrary, he told the court he was aware of and 

         understood his rights at the time he waived them, and based his decision to
do so 

         on a misunderstanding concerning the severity of available sanctions for 
         (2)     Minjares argued to the district court that his pre-Miranda statement to 
         Agent DeLeon effectively let the "cat out of the bag," and thus his
         post-Miranda statements were fruit of the poisonous tree.  Minjares has not
         this argument on appeal or cited authorities in its favor, and therefore we
         no view of its merits in this opinion.  Cf. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v.
         31 F.3d 979, 984 n.7 (10th Cir. 1994) (failure to raise an issue in the
         brief waives the issue).
         reentering the United States following a deportation.  See Colorado v.

         479 U.S. 564, 574 (1987) ("The Constitution does not require that a
criminal suspect know and understand every possible consequence of a waiver of
the Fifth 

         Amendment privilege.")

              Based on this record, we conclude there was sufficient evidence to

         the district court's conclusion that Minjares was not intoxicated during his 

         interrogation, and that his responses were voluntary.

         B.   Vienna Convention

              Minjares next argues that his statements should be suppressed because

         were taken in violation of his rights under the Vienna Convention.  Article
36 of 

         the Vienna Convention reads, in relevant part:

              1.  With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions 
              relating to nationals of the sending state . . . .
              (b) if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State 
              shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, 
              within its consular district, a national of that state is arrested or 
              committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any 
              other manner.  Any communication addressed to the consular post by 
              the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall also be 
              forwarded by the said authorities without delay.  The said authorities 
              shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under 
              this sub-paragraph. 
              . . . . 
              2.  The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be 
              exercised in conformity with the laws and regulations of the 
              receiving State, subject to the priviso, however, that the said laws 
              and regulations must enable full effect to be given to the purposes 
              for which the rights accorded under this Article are intended.
         21 U.S.T at 100-101.  Minjares interprets this language to create an

         right of access to consular officials, a right to consult with them, and a right
to be 

         notified by police of those entitlements.  Further, Minjares argues that he
         prejudiced by the officers' failure to inform him of these rights because, had

         known of them, he would have consulted with the consul and refused to
waive his 

         constitutional rights.  Finally, Minjares argues that established principles of 

         criminal law require that the Government be barred from using statements

         in derogation of one's Vienna Convention rights at trial.

              It remains an open question whether the Vienna Convention gives rise to 

         any individually enforceable rights.  See Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371,

         (1998) (per curiam) (stating in dicta that the Vienna Convention "arguably 

         confers on an individual the right to consular assistance following arrest"). 

         recent years several courts of appeals, including the Tenth Circuit, have 

         considered this question and declined to address it directly, concluding that

         if the Vienna Convention does create individual rights, suppression is not

         appropriate remedy for a violation of those rights.  See, e.g., United States

         Chanthadara, 230 F.3d 1237, 1255-56 (10th Cir. 2000); United States v. Li,

         F.3d 56, 66 (1st Cir. 2000) (en banc); United States v. Page, 232 F.3d 536,

         (6th Cir. 2000); United States v. Chaparro-Alcantara, 226 F.3d 616, 622
(7th Cir. 

         2000); United States v. Cordoba-Mosquera, 212 F.3d 1194, 1196 (11th Cir. 

         2000); United States v. Lombera-Camorlinga, 206 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir.

         (en banc); cf. United States v. Jimenez-Nava, 243 F.3d 192, 198-99 (5th

         2001) (finding both that the Vienna Convention creates no individual rights

         that suppression of evidence would be inappropriate if it did).

              Our opinion in Chanthadara held, under a plain-error standard of review, 

         that suppression is not an appropriate remedy for a violation of Article 36
of the 

         Vienna Convention, see 230 F.3d at 1255 (citing Lombera-Camorlinga, 206

         at 886; Li, 206 F.3d at 60), and we now reaffirm that holding in this case
under a 

         de novo standard of review.  Accordingly, once again we need not decide

         the Vienna Convention creates individually enforceable rights. Several 

         considerations support the outcome that suppression is not an appropriate

         First, "[t]he exclusionary rule was not fashioned to vindicate a broad,

         right to be free of agency action not authorized by law, but rather to protect 

         specific, constitutionally protected rights."  Page, 232 F.3d at 540

         mark omitted); see also Li, 206 F.3d at 61 ("Historically, [suppression has]

         available only in cases implicating the most fundamental of rights.  This
class has 

         heretofore been limited to those paramount protections secured by the

         Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution.").  Since

         Vienna Convention does not create fundamental rights on par with those set

         in the Bill of Rights, see Jimenez-Nava, 243 F.3d at 199; Page, 232 F.3d at

         Li, 206 F.3d at 61, we are unwilling to enforce Article 36 with the

         created remedy of suppression.

              Further, "[d]efendants who assert violations of a statute or treaty that

         not create fundamental rights are not generally entitled to the suppression

         evidence unless that statute or treaty provides for such a remedy."  Li, 206
         at 61.  As courts reviewing the Vienna Convention have consistently

         the treaty does not expressly incorporate a suppression remedy.  See id. at

         (citing cases).  There is no evidence that the Vienna Convention's drafters 

         intended to remedy violations of Article 36 through the suppression of

         See Chapparo-Alcantara, 226 F.3d at 621 ("Indeed, the records of the

         demonstrate that the delegates did not discuss the issue of whether

         was an appropriate remedy . . . ." (citing Official Records, United Nations 

         Conference on Consular Relations (Volumes I & II) (1963))).  Moreover,

         is no reason to think the drafters of the Vienna Convention had [the]

         American [Fifth and Sixth Amendment] rights in mind . . . given the fact

         even the United States Supreme Court did not require the Fifth and Sixth 

         Amendment post-arrest warnings until it decided Miranda in 1966, three

         after the treaty was drafted."  Lombera-Camorlinga, 206 F.3d at 886. 
Indeed, no 

         other country has interpreted the Vienna Convention to require suppression
as a 

         remedy for a violation of Article 36.  See Li, 206 F.3d at 65 (citing

         by United States Department of State that it is "unaware of any country
party to 

         any consular convention with the United States that remedies failures of 

         notification through its criminal justice process."); Lombera-Camorlinga,

         F.3d at 888 ("The state department also points out that no other signatories
to the 

         Vienna Convention have permitted suppression under similar
circumstances, and 

         that two (Italy and Australia) have specifically rejected it."); Linda Jane
         Springrose, Note, Strangers in a Strange Land: The Rights of Non-Citizens

         Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 14 Geo.
Immigr. L.J. 

         185, 211-12 (1999).(3)

              In addition, courts have given weight to the United States Department of 

         State's interpretation of the Vienna Convention arguing against a

         remedy.  See, e.g., Lombera-Camorlinga, 206 at 887-888 (noting the State 

         Department believes suppression is an inappropriate remedy for a violation
of the 

         Vienna convention); Page, 232 F.3d at 541 ("In the opinion of the State 

         Department, `[t]he only remedies for failure of consular notification under

         [Vienna Convention] are diplomatic, political, or exist between states under 

         international law.'" (quoting Li, 206 F.3d at 63 (alterations in original).)); 

         Kolovrat v. Oregon, 366 U.S. 187, 194 (1961) ("While courts interpret
treaties for themselves, the meaning given them by the departments of

         particularly charged with their negotiation and enforcement is given great 


              Finally, we find that even if suppression were an appropriate remedy for

         violation of the Vienna Convention, it would not be appropriate in this case 

         because Minjares has not demonstrated he was prejudiced by a violation of

         treaty.  Cf. Chanthadara, 230 F.3d at 1256 ("Even presuming the Vienna 

         Convention creates individually enforceable rights, Mr. Chanthadara has

         demonstrated that denial of such rights caused him prejudice.").  Like the 

         appellant in Chanthadara, Minjares was raised primarily in the United

         See id.  Minjares understood his constitutional rights, and was generally

         with this country's criminal processes.  Moreover, in this case the district

         made a factual finding that Minjares's assertion that he would have
contacted the 

         consulate had he been aware of his Vienna Convention rights lacked

         We defer to a district court's credibility determinations when reviewing a

         court's findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard, see Patten, 183

         at 1193, and nothing in the remainder of the record leaves us with a

         that a mistake has been made. 


                                  IV.  CONCLUSION

         (3)     Following oral arguments in this case, Minjares submitted media
         of two unpublished cases in which British courts suppressed statements
made by 
         foreign nationals in derogation of statutory rights to consult with consular 
         officials that were apparently similar to those contained in Article 36 of the 
         Vienna Convention.  For the reasons stated in this opinion, we do not find
         accounts persuasive.
              In addition, we note that on June 27, 2001, the International Court of 
         Justice held that two German nationals prosecuted for murder in Arizona
         a deprivation of individual rights created by the Vienna Convention because
         were not informed of their right to consular access, and because they were
         a review and reconsideration of their convictions for murder in light of
         procedural bar. Seegenerally Germany v. United States of America, 2001
         __, available at 
         does not appear that the International Court of Justice considered the 
         applicability of the exclusionary rule to violations of the Vienna
              For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's order denying 

         Minjares's motion to suppress his statements to Agent DeLeon.
         No. 00-2004, United States v. Minjares-Alvarez

         LUCERO, Circuit Judge, concurring.

              I join in the majority's resolution of Minjares-Alvarez's Fifth

         claim and write separately to concur in the majority's resolution of

         Vienna Convention claim.  

              Like the majority, I would have resolved Minjares-Alvarez's Vienna 

         Convention claim based upon the holding in United States v. Chanthadara

         "[e]ven presuming the Vienna Convention creates individually enforceable 

         rights," defendant Minjares-Alvarez, like Chanthadara, "has not
demonstrated that 

         denial of such rights caused him prejudice."  230 F.3d 1237, 1256 (10th Cir. 

         2000).  As the majority notes, "the district court made a factual finding that 

         Minjares's assertion that he would have contacted the consulate had he been 

         aware of his Vienna Convention rights lacked credibility."  Majority Op. at

         Having decided the case on that basis, I would not reach the remaining

              Particularly in matters of international concern, I think it appropriate to 

         reach only those issues necessary for resolution of the dispute before us.