Roberto Silva-Mondragon v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 25 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERTO SILVA-MONDRAGON, No. 12-71454
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-526-573
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2013**
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Roberto Silva-Mondragon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We review de novo questions of law, including constitutional claims. Mohammed
v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for
review.
The agency did not err in admitting Silva-Mondragon’s Form I-213 where
Silva-Mondragon did not demonstrate that the Form I-213 was obtained through an
egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment. See Orhorhaghe v. INS, 38 F.3d
488, 492-93 (9th Cir. 1994). The Form I-213 was probative and Silva-Mondragon
does not claim that he was coerced into giving the information in the I-213 or that
the information it contains is incorrect. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th
Cir. 1995) (Admission of a Form I-213 “is fair absent evidence of coercion or that
the statements are not those of the petitioner.”); see also Lopez-Chavez v. INS, 259
F.3d 1176, 1178 (9th Cir. 2001) (alienage can be proven with a properly
authenticated Form I-213).
Silva-Mondragon’s claim that he was prevented from exercising his right to
admit or deny the factual allegations and charge of removability contained in the
Notice to Appear is belied by the record, and he has not established prejudice from
the admission of the request for a prompt hearing. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and prejudice to prevail on a due
process claim).
2 12-71454
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Silva-Mondragon’s remaining
claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-71454