Patricia Mireles Sanchez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRICIA MIRELES SANCHEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70267
Agency No. A090-818-028
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Patricia Mireles Sanchez, 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 denying her motion to reopen in absentia removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
* 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
OCT 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-70267
claims of constitutional violations. Martinez-Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029,
1033 (9th Cir. 2011), and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion
to reopen, Arredondo v. Lynch, 824 F.3d 801, 805 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the
petition for review.
The agency did not err or violate due process in finding Mireles Sanchez
removable as charged, because Samayoa-Martinez v. Holder forecloses her
contention that her statements to immigration officials at the border were 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).
The agency also did not err or violate due process by admitting the Form I-
213, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien and the Record of Sworn Statement,
where the documents submitted were probative, their admission was fundamentally
fair, and Mireles Sanchez 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 citations omitted)); Lata,
204 F.3d at 1246.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-70267
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Mireles Sanchez’s motion
to reopen, where Mireles Sanchez’s evidence was insufficient to demonstrate an
exceptional circumstance that prevented her from attending her hearing on June 13,
2012. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1) (defining
exceptional circumstances as circumstances beyond the control of the alien).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --