Case ID: f-appx_243/html/0339-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Marie-Gabrielle Jocelyn PHILIPPE-AUGUSTE, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER , Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-74923.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2007 .
    Filed Sept. 27, 2007.
    Frank P. Sprouls, Esq., Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marie-Gabrielle Jocelyn Philippe-Auguste, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“LJ”) order denying her application for voluntary departure. We deny the petition for review.

The record supports the BIA’s determination that Philippe-Auguste failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that she was eligible for voluntary departure. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(c)(l)(iv), (2).

We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. See Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). Philippe-Auguste’s contention that she was denied due process because the BIA relied on a ground different from that relied upon by the IJ to deny her application for voluntary departure is unavailing. See Lin v. Gonzales, 472 F.3d 1131, 1136, n. 1 (9th Cir.2007). Moreover, Philippe-Auguste has not demonstrated prejudice. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).

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