ROBERTO SILVA-MONDRAGON V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-71454 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 25 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERTO SILVA-MONDRAGON, Petitioner, No. 12-71454 Agency No. A087-526-573 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 15, 2013** Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Roberto Silva-Mondragon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). We review de novo questions of law, including constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. The agency did not err in admitting Silva-Mondragon s Form I-213 where Silva-Mondragon did not demonstrate that the Form I-213 was obtained through an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment. See Orhorhaghe v. INS, 38 F.3d 488, 492-93 (9th Cir. 1994). The Form I-213 was probative and Silva-Mondragon does not claim that he was coerced into giving the information in the I-213 or that the information it contains is incorrect. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995) (Admission of a Form I-213 is fair absent evidence of coercion or that the statements are not those of the petitioner. ); see also Lopez-Chavez v. INS, 259 F.3d 1176, 1178 (9th Cir. 2001) (alienage can be proven with a properly authenticated Form I-213). Silva-Mondragon s claim that he was prevented from exercising his right to admit or deny the factual allegations and charge of removability contained in the Notice to Appear is belied by the record, and he has not established prejudice from the admission of the request for a prompt hearing. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). 2 12-71454 In light of our disposition, we need not reach Silva-Mondragon s remaining claim. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 12-71454

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.