
    Lorenzo Leon MONDRAGON, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-71933
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    FILED OCTOBER 3, 2017
    Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Federal Immigration Counselors, AZ, PC, Phoenix, AZ, Petitioner.
    Melissa Katherine Lott, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is ■ suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lorenzo Leon Mondragon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to suppress evidence and terminate removal proceedings, and ordering him removed. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress and questions of law. Martinez-Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029, 1033 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in denying Leon Mondragon’s motion to suppress evidence and terminate removal proceedings, or iii sustaining the removability charge, because Samayoa-Martinez v. Holder forecloses his contention that his 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). Leon Mondragon urges us to reconsider our holding in Samayoa-Martinez, but a three-judge panel cannot overrule circuit precedent in the absence of an intervening decision from a higher court or en banc decision of this court. See Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     