Case ID: f-appx_649/html/0518-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ignacio Gil CORDOVA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-71772
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 26, 2016.
    
    Filed May 2, 2016.
    Pieter Daniel Speyer, Esquire, Law Office of Pieter Speyer, La Jolla, CA, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Laura M.L. Maroldy, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ignacio Gil Cordova, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

We are not persuaded by Cordova’s contention that the laws governing cancellation of removal deprive his children, and the child for whom his wife is a guardian, of due process. See, e.g., Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 793-99, 97 S.Ct. 1473, 52 L.Ed.2d 50 (1977) (rejecting a due process challenge involving the rights of citizens and their alien parent or child); Morales-Izquierdo v. Department of Homeland Sec., 600 F.3d 1076, 1091 (9th Cir.2010), overruled in part on other grounds by Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504, 516 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc) (denial of discretionary relief does not violate petitioner’s or citizen family member’s substantive rights under the Due Process Clause).

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