Case ID: f-appx_90/html/0989-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maria Magdalena LOPEZ-CARDONA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-71213.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2004.
    
    Decided March 24, 2004.
    Curtis Pierce, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Maria Magdalena Lopez-Cardona, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Los Angeles District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, David V. Ber-nal, Attorney, Jamie M. Dowd, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria Magdalena Lopez-Cardona, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance, without opinion, of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings de novo, Lopez-Urenda v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 788, 791 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Petitioner’s contention that the BIA violated her due process rights by failing to state its reasons for affirming the IJ’s decision is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-51 (9th Cir. 2003), which held that it does not violate due process for the BIA to affirm an immigration judge’s decision without issuing an opinion.

The Clerk is directed to stay the mandate pending the resolution of Desta v. Ashcroft, No. 03-70477 and further order of this Court.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.