Martha Torres Mendoza v. Jefferson Sessions , 693 F. App'x 569 ( 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
MARTHA TORRES MENDOZA, No. 12-73127
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-748-476
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.
Martha Torres Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her motion to suppress evidence and
terminate removal proceedings, and ordering her 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 Torres Mendoza’s motion to suppress
evidence and terminate proceedings, because Samayoa-Martinez v. Holder, 558
F.3d 897, 901-02 (9th Cir. 2009), forecloses her contention that her statements to
immigration officials at the border were obtained in violation of 8 C.F.R.
§ 287.3(c). Torres Mendoza 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 Torres
Mendoza’s contention that de Rodriguez-Echeverria v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 1047(9th Cir. 2008) controls the result of her case.
To the extent Torres Mendoza contends the agency erred or violated her due
process rights by admitting into evidence her statements to immigration officials,
this contention fails because the statements were probative and their admission was
fundamentally fair. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995)
(“[I]nformation on an authenticated immigration form is presumed to be reliable in
the absence of evidence to the contrary presented by the alien.”); Lata v. INS, 204
2 12-73127
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to
prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-73127