Case ID: f-appx_325/html/0634-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Belen PARRA-ALTAMIRANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-73977.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 12, 2009.
    
    Filed May 27, 2009.
    Philippe Dwelshauvers, Esq., Fresno, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jamie M. Dowd, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Belen Parra-AItamirano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order finding Parra-Altamirano removable as an aggravated felon. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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) (per curiam), and we deny the petition for review.

We reject Parra-Altamirano’s contention that the IJ violated due process by denying a continuance because her proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that [she] was prevented from reasonably presenting [her] case.” Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Grageda v. INS, 12 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir.1993) (IJ properly denied motion to continue because pending collateral attack did not affect finality of conviction). Moreover, Parra-AItamirano failed to demonstrate prejudice. See Colmenar, 210 F.3d at 971.

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