Case ID: f-appx_269/html/0762-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maria Lisbet LUNA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-75784.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 26, 2008.
    
    Filed March 12, 2008.
    Maria Lisbet Luna, Riverside, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, W. Manning Evans, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria Lisbet Luna, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order upholding an immigration judge’s decision pretermitting her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s continuous physical presence determination for substantial evidence. See Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir.2006). We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. See 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 Luna did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement where the record shows she was placed in expedited removal proceedings during the requisite time period. See Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 512 (9th Cir.2007) (holding that expedited removal interrupts an alien’s continuous physical presence for cancellation purposes).

Luna’s argument that the ten-year continuous physical presence requirement violates her due process rights is foreclosed by Padilla-Padilla v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 972, 979-80 (9th Cir.2006).

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