Case ID: f-appx_550/html/0401-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alicia Gonzalez FLORES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-73231.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 18, 2013.
    Lamar Peckham, Law Office of Lamar Peckham, Santa Rosa, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Todd J. Cochran, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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

Gonzalez Flores’ due process claim fails because Gonzalez Flores was given the opportunity to present witnesses on her behalf, she failed to request a continuance when they did not appear, and she failed to demonstrate that the absence of their testimony prejudiced her. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

Gonzalez Flores failed to challenge in her opening brief the BIA’s determination that her removal from the United States does not violate the rights of her United States citizen children, and this claim is therefore waived. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011).

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