Juan Aguirre-Sandoval v. Jefferson Sessions

Ninth Circuit

Juan Aguirre-Sandoval v. Jefferson Sessions

693 F. App'x 570

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 5, 2017

Docket12-70507

StatusUnpublished

This text of 693 F. App'x 570 (Juan Aguirre-Sandoval v. Jefferson Sessions) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Juan Aguirre-Sandoval v. Jefferson Sessions, 693 F. App'x 570 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

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 (“LJ”) decision denying his motion to suppress evidence and terminate removal proceedings, and-ordering him removed. We haye jurisdiction 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). Réyna urges us to reconsider our holding in Samayoa-Mar-tinez, 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 Avar *571 gyan 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 factors to persuade the court not to admit it.”) (internal citations omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

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 (“LJ”) decision denying his motion to suppress evidence and terminate removal proceedings, and-ordering him removed. We haye jurisdiction 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). Réyna urges us to reconsider our holding in Samayoa-Mar-tinez, 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 Avar *571 gyan 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 factors to persuade the court not to admit it.”) (internal citations omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

693 F. App'x 570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juan-aguirre-sandoval-v-jefferson-sessions-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack