likely to elicit an incriminating response.” 98 F.Supp.3d at 913. The court keyed on the fact that the border patrol agent knew of the defendant’s prior deportation before questioning him about his immigration status. Id. Indeed, in that case, the government ultimately abandoned its argument that the defendant was not subject to “interrogation” because his questioning “was done [only] for ‘administrative’ immigration purposes.” Id. Instead, the government agreed that the border patrol agent’s questions “did amount to ‘interrogation’ for Miranda purposes.” Id. Other courts have followed suit in a string of cases involving background and pedigree questioning of suspected aliens. See, e.g., United States v. Arroyo-Garcia, No. 1:12-CR-0357, 2014 WL 1309078, at *8 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2014) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Sepulveda-Sandoval, 729
holding that miranda warnings were required where questions about whether defendant was in the country illegally and whether he had any documentation  went beyond merely determining alienage and predictably elicited incriminating responses based on the facts known to agents at the outset of the interview holding that the initial questioning was merely investigatory and miranda warnings were not necessary until after police found incriminating evidence holding that the warnings in their totality satisfied miranda holding that merely because questioning was designed to produce incriminating responses took place at the police station and occurred only after the defendant was identified as a suspect did not trigger miranda holding that questions as to whether defendant was in the country legally were not routine booking questions but rather constituted interrogation requiring miranda warnings where defendant faced the charge of being an unlawful alien in possession of a firearm