Case ID: f-appx_362/html/0609-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Erika BERMUDEZ SALAZAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70356.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 11, 2010.
    Yevgeniy Chechenin, Alexander H. Lu-barsky, Esquire, San Mateo, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, 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: 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

Erika Bermudez Salazar, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s factual findings, Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.2002), and review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Bermudez Salazar is not eligible for cancellation of removal because she has presented no evidence that she has a qualifying relative as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). See Molina-Estrada, 293 F.3d at 1093-94.

Bermudez Salazar’s due process claim fails because she did not request a continuance. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for 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.