Tania Puentes v. Matthew Whitaker ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 30 2018
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    TANIA A. PUENTES,                               No.    16-72720
    Petitioner,                     Agency No. A203-161-658
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
    Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted November 27, 2018**
    Before:      CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    Tania A. Puentes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
    immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to terminate proceedings and
    ordering her removed. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
    *
    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).
    de novo questions of law. Martinez-Medina v. Holder, 
    673 F.3d 1029
    , 1033 (9th
    Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
    The agency did not err in denying Puentes’s motion to 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). We reject Puentes’
    contention that de Rodriguez-Echeverria v. Mukasey, 
    534 F.3d 1047
    (9th Cir.
    2008), controls the result of her case.
    We do not reach Puentes’s unexhausted contention that the agency erred in
    charging her as an arriving alien where she was paroled into the United States. See
    Zhang v. Ashcroft, 
    388 F.3d 713
    , 721 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must sufficiently
    put the BIA on notice as to specific issues so that the BIA has an opportunity to
    pass on those issues).
    Puentes’s motion to remand (Docket Entry No. 26) is denied.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
    2                                    16-72720
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-72720

Filed Date: 11/30/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021