Case ID: f-appx_485/html/0873-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Josephine MEDRANO-BOGGS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72928.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 15, 2012.
    Curtis F. Pierce, Law Offices Of Curtis F. Pierce, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Melissa Lynn Neiman-Kelting, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL DOJ-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: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Josephine Medrano-Boggs, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Medrano-Boggs contends that the IJ violated her right to due process when the IJ did not postpone her merits hearing for her United States citizen spouse’s testimony. Medrano-Boggs’ contention fails because the IJ had already continued her merits hearing once before to obtain her spouse’s testimony and the spouse still did not appear. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

Medrano-Boggs also contends that the IJ deprived her of due process by failing to comply with 8 C.F.R. § 1240.1(b). She fails to show any prejudice from the IJ’s failure to certify for the record that he, as a substitute judge, had reviewed her record. See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246.

Petitioner’s remaining contention is 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.