Barajas v. Mukasey

Ninth Circuit

Barajas v. Mukasey

302 F. App'x 639

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 2, 2008

DocketNo. 05-72915

StatusPublished

This text of 302 F. App'x 639 (Barajas v. Mukasey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barajas v. Mukasey, 302 F. App'x 639 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[640]*640MEMORANDUM

**

Pablo Mora Barajas and Martha Alicia Medina Ceniceros, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not err in denying petitioners’ request for a continuance because they failed to demonstrate that the IJ’s decision may have affected the outcome of their proceeding. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring prejudice to succeed on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[640]*640MEMORANDUM

**

Pablo Mora Barajas and Martha Alicia Medina Ceniceros, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not err in denying petitioners’ request for a continuance because they failed to demonstrate that the IJ’s decision may have affected the outcome of their proceeding. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring prejudice to succeed on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 F. App'x 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barajas-v-mukasey-ca9-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack