Maria Sanchez De Orozco v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 425 F. App'x 552 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA CONCEPSION SANCHEZ DE No. 09-70813
OROZCO, a.k.a. Concepcion Sanchez-
Rivera, Agency No. A077-463-527
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM *
v.
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.
Maria Concepsion Sanchez De Orozco, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for
*
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).
cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for substantial evidence the agency’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 the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Sanchez De
Orozco did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement where the
record includes a Notice and Order of Expedited Removal as well as other
government documents corroborating the expedited removal. See Juarez-Ramos v.
Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 511 (9th Cir. 2007) (expedited removal order interrupts an
alien’s continuous physical presence for cancellation purposes).
Sanchez De Orozco’s due process claim fails because the IJ properly denied
her cancellation application on the basis that she failed to establish the requisite
continuous physical presence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due
process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-70813