Case ID: f-appx_693/html/0588-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Juan Carlos AGUIRRE-SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70507
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2017
    
    Filed July 5, 2017
    Douglas D. Nelson, Esquire, Attorney, Douglas D. Nelson, Attorney at Law, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner
    Dalin Riley Holyoak, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Carmel Aileen Morgan, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Carlos Aguirre-Sandoval, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his motion to suppress evidence and terminate removal proceedings, and ordering him removed. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review 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 Aguirre-Sandoval’s motion to suppress or terminate proceedings, or in sustaining the charge of inadmissibility, 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). Aguirre-Sandoval urges us to reconsider our holding in Sa-mayoa-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 Aguirre-Sandoval’s contention that de Rodriguez-Echeverria v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2008) controls the result of his case.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Aguirre-Sandoval’s unexhausted contentions regarding service of the list of legal service providers or errors in the government’s evidence, including the Form 1-213, Record of Inadmissible/Deportable Alien and D-166, Report of Investigation. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.