Case ID: f-appx_427/html/0589-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Katia Kina DURAN-SANTIAGO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72237.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2011.
    
    Filed April 15, 2011.
    James G. Roche, Esquire, Roche Law-firm, LLC, David W. Williams, Esquire, Law Office of David W. Williams, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.
    Brooke Maurer, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Katia Kina Duran-Santiago, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in concluding that Duran-Santiago failed to establish eligibility for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) because the record demonstrates she failed to submit any evidence in support of her eligibility claim. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) (alien bears the burden of establishing eligibility for requested relief).

We do not consider the new evidence Duran-Santiago seeks to introduce with her petition for review. See Chouchkov v. INS, 220 F.3d 1077, 1080 (9th Cir.2000) (review limited to the administrative record).

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