NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS RENE SAMAYOA CASTILLO, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-73098 

Agency No. A029-139-292 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 11, 2019

**

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Rene Samayoa Castillo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his 

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to terminate 

proceedings and ordering him removed. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims. 

 

* 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

JUN 13 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-73098 

Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part 

and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not err or violate due process in denying Samayoa Castillo’s 

motion to terminate removal proceedings, because his testimony before the IJ on 

March 20, 2015, was sufficient to sustain the charge of removability and was

independently obtained subsequent to the alleged due process and regulatory 

violations. See Magallanes-Damian v. INS, 783 F.2d 931, 934 (9th Cir. 1986) 

(even if interrogation and arrest involved constitutional violations, “they would not 

prevent reliance by the Board [BIA] on petitioners’ voluntary admission of illegal 

entry at the subsequent deportation hearing” (alteration in original, citation 

omitted)). The record does not support Samayoa Castillo’s contention that his 

testimony on March 20, 2015, was involuntary, or that the IJ was biased. 

Because the agency relied on Samayoa Castillo’s 2015 testimony and not the 

contested documents to find him removable, he has not shown any prejudice from 

the agency’s admission into evidence of documents containing his 2005 statements 

without allowing him the opportunity to cross-examine the authors of those 

documents. See Gomez-Velazco v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2018) 

(“[A]n individual may obtain relief for a due process violation only if he shows 

that the violation caused him prejudice, meaning the violation potentially affected 

the outcome of the immigration proceeding.”) Similarly, because the agency did 
3 16-73098 

not rely on his 2005 statements, we do not reach Samayoa Castillo’s contentions

that his 2005 statements should have been suppressed on the basis of alleged 

egregious violations of the Fourth Amendment and the Federal Regulations. 

See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (review is limited to 

the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA).

To the extent Samayoa Castillo contends the immigration officers who 

questioned him on May 3 and 4, 2005, violated 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(vii), we lack 

jurisdiction to consider this unexhausted contention. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 

1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not 

raised before the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.