Martha Torres Mendoza v. Jefferson Sessions

693 F. App'x 569
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJuly 5, 2017
Docket12-73127
StatusUnpublished

This text of 693 F. App'x 569 (Martha Torres Mendoza 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
Martha Torres Mendoza v. Jefferson Sessions, 693 F. App'x 569 (9th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Maria N. Garcia Arrieta, 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 (“U”) decision sustaining the inadmissibility charge and ordering removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo. Martinez-Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029, 1033 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in finding Garcia Arrieta removable as charged, 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). To the extent that Garcia Arrieta contends that de *570 Rodriguez-Echeverria v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2008) controls the result of her case, we reject that contention.

The BIA did not err or violate due process by not addressing Garcia Arrieta’s contentions regarding the IJ’s handling of the remand, where the holding in Samay-oa-Martinez was dispositive. See Samayoa-Martinez at 901-02; Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to reach non-dispositive issues); see also 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).

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

Related

De Rodriguez-Echeverria v. Mukasey
534 F.3d 1047 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Samayoa-Martinez v. Holder
558 F.3d 897 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
Martinez-Medina v. Holder
673 F.3d 1029 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
693 F. App'x 569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martha-torres-mendoza-v-jefferson-sessions-ca9-2017.