Guzman v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Guzman v. Holder

315 F. App'x 615

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 2009

DocketNo. 08-70493

StatusPublished

This text of 315 F. App'x 615 (Guzman v. Holder) 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

Guzman v. Holder, 315 F. App'x 615 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Maria Guadalupe Guzman, a naive and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of her application for cancellation of removal based on her failure to establish the requisite hardship to her qualifying United States citizen children.

Petitioner contends that the IJ’s exclusion of psychiatric evidence violated her due process rights. We agree with the BIA’s conclusions that the IJ need not discuss each piece of evidence, see Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir.2006), and that the record reflects that the IJ did indeed consider the exhibit in question. Accordingly, we hold that there was no due process violation.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Maria Guadalupe Guzman, a naive and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of her application for cancellation of removal based on her failure to establish the requisite hardship to her qualifying United States citizen children.

Petitioner contends that the IJ’s exclusion of psychiatric evidence violated her due process rights. We agree with the BIA’s conclusions that the IJ need not discuss each piece of evidence, see Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir.2006), and that the record reflects that the IJ did indeed consider the exhibit in question. Accordingly, we hold that there was no due process violation.

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)

315 F. App'x 615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guzman-v-holder-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack