ROBERTO TEPOZTECO-RIOS V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-72198 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERTO GERMAN TEPOZTECORIOS, AKA Roberto Rios, AKA Roberto Tepozteco, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-72198 Agency No. A205-712-052 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Roberto German Tepozteco-Rios, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction * 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). under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Tawadrus v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review. We reject Tepozteco-Rios’s contention that the agency denied his right to counsel and violated due process, where he expressly opted to continue unrepresented after the IJ asked if he would like more time to find an attorney. See id. at 1103 (explaining requirements for waiver of right to counsel); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). The BIA did not err in rejecting Tepozteco-Rios’s unsupported contentions that he was incapable of representing himself and that he fears returning to Mexico. See Carrillo-Gonzalez v. INS, 353 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 2003) (argument of counsel does not constitute evidence). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-72198

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.