TANIA PUENTES V. MATTHEW WHITAKER, No. 16-72720 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 30 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TANIA A. PUENTES, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-72720 Agency No. A203-161-658 v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 27, 2018** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Tania A. Puentes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to terminate proceedings and ordering her removed. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review * 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). de novo questions of law. Martinez-Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029, 1033 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The agency did not err in denying Puentes’s motion to terminate proceedings, because Samayoa-Martinez v. Holder, 558 F.3d 897, 901-02 (9th Cir. 2009), forecloses her contention that her statements to immigration officials at the border were obtained in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c). We reject Puentes’ contention that de Rodriguez-Echeverria v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2008), controls the result of her case. We do not reach Puentes’s unexhausted contention that the agency erred in charging her as an arriving alien where she was paroled into the United States. See Zhang v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 713, 721 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must sufficiently put the BIA on notice as to specific issues so that the BIA has an opportunity to pass on those issues). Puentes’s motion to remand (Docket Entry No. 26) is denied. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 16-72720

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.