Case ID: f-appx_400/html/0303-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rebecca CORPUS ESTEBAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71141.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 25, 2010.
    Matt Adams, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Kate Deboer Balaban, Esquire, OIL, Carl Henry McIntyre, Jr., Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, District Director, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, 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

Rebecca Corpus Esteban, a native and the citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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 de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not violate Esteban’s due process rights where the proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that [she] was prevented from reasonably presenting [her] case.” Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (citation omitted). Moreover, Esteban failed to demonstrate that additional testimony may have affected the outcome of the proceedings. See id. (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).

Esteban’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

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