NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 , 201 9 **

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 n ovo questions of law and constitutional claims.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not prec edent 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, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 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 t o terminate removal proceedings, because his testimony before the IJ on
March 20, 2015
, was sufficient to sustai n the charge of removability and w as
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 dep ortation 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 affect ed
the outcome of the immigration proceeding.”) Similarly, because the agency did3 16

- 73098

not rely on his 2005 statements, w e do not reach Samayoa Castillo’s contention s

that his 2005 statements should have been suppressed on the basis of alleged
egregious violat ion s 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.