Case ID: f-appx_501/html/0680-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Luz Anabeli ESCOBAR ENRIQUEZ, a.k.a. Luz Anabeli Escobar Enrique, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-73287.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Dec. 21, 2012.
    Hector Ricardo Ortega, Ortega, Canossa & Associates, PLC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Chief Counsel ICE, Colin J. Tucker, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luz Anabeli Escobar Enriquez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA properly determined that the IJ did not violate Escobar Enriquez’s due process rights by failing to advise her that she had a right to apply for asylum, where Escobar Enriquez never expressed a fear that she would be harmed if returned to Guatemala, the record does not otherwise suggest a basis for any such fear, and Escobar Enriquez had recently voluntarily returned to Guatemala for two weeks. See Valencia v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 1261, 1262-63 (9th Cir.2008) (there is no requirement that an alien be advised of the availability of asylum where there is no apparent eligibility for it); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice for 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.