Bertoldo Reyna v. Jefferson Sessions , 693 F. App'x 571 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 5 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BERTOLDO ESCOBAR REYNA, No. 12-70826
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-961-396
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Bertoldo Escobar Reyna, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to suppress evidence and
terminate removal proceedings, and ordering him removed. We have jurisdiction
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress, and
claims of constitutional violations. Martinez-Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029,
1033 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in denying Reyna’s motion to suppress evidence and
terminate proceedings, because Samayoa-Martinez v. Holder, 558 F.3d 897, 901-
02 (9th Cir. 2009), forecloses his contention that his statements to immigration
officials at the border were obtained in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c). Reyna
urges us to reconsider our holding in Samayoa-Martinez, but a three-judge panel
cannot overrule circuit precedent in the absence of an intervening decision from a
higher court or en banc decision of this court. See Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d
672, 677 (9th Cir. 2011). We also reject Reyna’s contention that de Rodriguez-
Echeverria v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2008) controls the result of his
case.
The agency also did not err by admitting the government’s evidence, where
the documents submitted were probative, their admission was fundamentally fair,
and Reyna failed to establish that they were inaccurate or obtained by coercion.
See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995) ((“The burden of
establishing a basis for exclusion of evidence from a government record falls on
the opponent of the evidence, who must come forward with enough negative
2 12-70826
factors to persuade the court not to admit it.” ) (internal citations omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-70826