Case Name: Martha Lopez LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-19
Citations: 694 F. App'x 525
Docket Number: No. 13-70931
Parties: Martha Lopez LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 694
Pages: 525–525

Head Matter:
Martha Lopez LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-70931
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 11, 2017
Filed July 19, 2017
Thomas A. Lappin, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Thomas A. Lappin, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner
OIL, Carlton Frederick Sheffield, 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: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Martha Lopez Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision finding her removable. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims. 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 finding Lopez Lopez removable as charged, because Samayoa-Martinez v. Holder forecloses her contention that her statements to immigration officials at the border were unconstitutionally obtained in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c). 558 F.3d 897, 901-02 (9th Cir. 2009); see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and substantial 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.