information obtained from Daniels’s civil tax files The second basis for Daniels’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained at Gould’s residence is her contention that CID Agent Runkle obtained her civil tax files in violation of federal law. This argument relies upon the required confidentiality of taxpayers’ tax returns. 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a) (providing that “[r]eturns and return information shall be confidential” and shall not be disclosed except as authorized by federal law). We need not decide whether a violation of § 6103 occurred, because even assuming that Runkle obtained Daniels’s tax files without following the procedures set forth in § 6103, suppression of the evidence is not the appropriate remedy. Nowicki v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 262 F.3d 1162, 1163 (11th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Michaelian, 803 F.2d 1042,
holding that suppression of the evidence or dismissal of an indictment are not required to remedy a violation of  6103 holding that the exclusionary rule generally does not apply to immigration proceedings holding that a violation of  6103 does not require the application of the exclusionary rule holding that because code  19260 a procedural statute did not expressly provide a right of suppression of evidence a violation of that provision did not require application of the exclusionary rule in the absence of a constitutional violation holding judicial exclusionary rule inapplicable to administrative license revocation proceedings but acknowledging application of statutory exclusionary rules where applicable