
    Roberto German TEPOZTECO-RIOS, AKA Roberto Rios, AKA Roberto Tepozteco, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-72198
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 20, 2017
    Carolina Gomez, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Carolina Gomez, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner
    
      OIL, Steven Kiyoto Uejio, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 (“U”) removal order. We haye jurisdiction 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 Tepoz-teco-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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     