Julieta Escobar Suarez v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 424 F. App'x 648 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIETA ESCOBAR SUAREZ, No. 09-71298
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-052-807
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Julieta Escobar Suarez, 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 application for cancellation of removal.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
*
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).
evidence the BIA’s continuous physical presence determination, Ibarra-Flores v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2006), and review de novo claims of
constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d
889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Escobar Suarez’s
expedited removal order prevented her from accruing the continuous physical
presence required for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1);
Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 511-12 (9th Cir. 2007) (an expedited
removal order interrupts accrual of continuous physical presence for purposes of
cancellation of removal).
We lack jurisdiction to review her challenge to her expedited removal order.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A); Avendano-Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 813,
818-19 (9th Cir. 2004). Her contention that the removal statute is unconstitutional
as applied to her is not persuasive.
We also lack jurisdiction to review Escobar Suarez’s due process claim
regarding her 1998 departure because she did not raise it before the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 09-71298