In a motion to suppress an application under the Immigration & Nationality Act, how have the courts considered the facts of the appellant's testimony at the preliminary examination?

2 Appellant did not testify at the preliminary examination. However, at the hearing on the motion to suppress he testified that he remained silent when asked what the package contained. Because of the rule that the court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the respondent, and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact that the trier could reasonably adduce from the evidence, we conclude that the court accepted the officers' version and not the appellant's version of what was said, and by whom about the packages containing marijuana. (People v. Sweeney, 55 Cal.2d 27, 33, 9 Cal.Rptr. 793, 357 P.2d 1049.)

3 Immigration & Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. 1357 provides: