Case ID: f-appx_323/html/0627-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Annabelle FESTEJO-SALAZAR, aka Anabelle Nazareno, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-73201.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2009.
    
    Filed April 24, 2009.
    Liliana M. Loftman, Esquire, Law Office of Liliana M. Loftman, LLC, David W. Kwan, Esquire, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Aviva Poczter, Senior Litigation Counsel, David Schor, Trial, 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, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, for Respondent.
    Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Annabelle Festejo-Salazar, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Hughes v. Ashcroft, 255 F.3d 752, 755 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in concluding that Festejo-Salazar is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(3)(D) (“Any alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under this chapter (including section 1324a of this title) or any Federal or State law is deportable.”).

Festejo-Salazar’s contentions that she is not removable under § 1227(a)(3)(D) because she is female, and because she recanted her citizenship claim, are unpersuasive.

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.