(a treaty requires “a formal ratification”); Garza v. Lappin, 253 F.3d 918, 925 (7th Cir.2001) (explaining that when the United States has signed, but not ratified, an international agreement, the agreement “does not yet qualify as one of the ‘treaties’ of the United States that creates binding obligations”). In addition, this Court cannot grant relief under the ICCPR because it is not a self-executing treaty. Beazley v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 248, 267 (5th Cir.2001). Martinez-Lopez also argues that customary international law, including principles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, prevents his removal. International customs, however, cannot override congressional intent as expressed by statute. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 731, 124 S.Ct. 2739, 159 L.Ed.2d 718 (2004) (<HOLDING>); Bradvica v. INS, 128 F.3d 1009, 1014 n. 5
recognizing that the states have a cognizableinterest in whether congress may direct or otherwise motivate the states to regulate in a particular field or a particular way holding that ejxcept in matters governed by the federal constitution or by acts of congress the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state holding that federal law establishes the applicable standards of care in the field of aviation safety generally and thus preempts the entire field from state regulation holding that congress may shut the door to the law of nations either explicitly or implicitly by treaties or statutes that occupy the field holding that congress may not direct a state to enact or enforce a particular law or type of law