NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CIRO CHAVELAS ESPINOZA, AKA Ciro 

Chavelas, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 13-72016 

Agency No. A073-957-998 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 11, 2017**

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

Ciro Chavelas Espinoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to suppress evidence and 

terminate removal proceedings, and ordering removal. We have jurisdiction under 

 

* 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).

FILED

JUL 19 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 13-72016 

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 or violate due process in denying Espinoza’s motion 

to suppress evidence and terminate removal proceedings, where Espinoza did not 

demonstrate that his statements to immigration officials at the border were 

obtained through an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment, see LopezRodriguez v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2008) (a Fourth Amendment 

violation is egregious if evidence is obtained by a deliberate violation of the Fourth 

Amendment, or by conduct a reasonable officer should have known is in violation 

of the Constitution), and Samayoa-Martinez v. Holder, 558 F.3d 897, 901-02 (9th 

Cir. 2009) forecloses his contention that his statements were obtained in violation 

of 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c), 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). To the 

extent Espinoza urges us to reconsider our holding in Samayoa-Martinez, a threejudge 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). 

The agency also did not err or violate due process by admitting into evidence 

his statements to immigration officials, where the statements were probative, their 
3 13-72016 

admission was fundamentally fair, and Espinoza 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 

citation omitted)); Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246. 

To the extent Espinoza contends that he was entitled to cross-examine the 

border officials who prepared his statement, we reject this contention. See 8 

U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B); Espinoza, 45 F.3d at 311 (aliens in deportation 

proceedings may not assert a cross-examination right to prevent the government 

from establishing uncontested facts).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.