
    Maria N. Garcia ARRIETA, AKA Maria Navor Garcia Arrieta, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-73047
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2017
    
    Filed July 5, 2017
    Murray David Hilts, Law Offices of Murray D. Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner
    Keith Ian McManus, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Joseph Anthony O’Connell, 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: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria N. Garcia Arrieta, 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 (“U”) decision sustaining the inadmissibility charge and ordering removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo. Martinez-Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029, 1033 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in finding Garcia Arrieta removable as charged, 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). To the extent that Garcia Arrieta contends that de Rodriguez-Echeverria v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2008) controls the result of her case, we reject that contention.

The BIA did not err or violate due process by not addressing Garcia Arrieta’s contentions regarding the IJ’s handling of the remand, where the holding in Samay-oa-Martinez was dispositive. See Samayoa-Martinez at 901-02; Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to reach non-dispositive issues); see also 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).

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