Maria Sanchez De Orozco v. Eric Holder, Jr.

425 F. App'x 552
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 28, 2011
Docket09-70813
StatusUnpublished

This text of 425 F. App'x 552 (Maria Sanchez De Orozco v. Eric Holder, Jr.) 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
Maria Sanchez De Orozco v. Eric Holder, Jr., 425 F. App'x 552 (9th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

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 cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination, Ibarrar-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 re *553 moval. 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.

**

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

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
425 F. App'x 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maria-sanchez-de-orozco-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2011.