Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02008/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02008-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Norabely Rubio-Perez
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

Michael B. Mukasey has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the

United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 43(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2008

___________

Norabely Rubio-Perez, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the

* Board of Immigration Appeals.

Michael B. Mukasey,1

 Attorney *

General, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: April 4, 2008

Filed: April 10, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Norabely Rubio-Perez (Rubio), a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals which affirmed an Immigration Judge’s

(IJ’s) denial of cancellation of removal. In this petition for review, Rubio argues that

the IJ violated her due process rights by ruling on her application for cancellation of

removal on an incomplete record.

Appellate Case: 07-2008 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/10/2008 Entry ID: 3422384
-2-

We have jurisdiction to consider Rubio’s due process challenge, see MunozYepez v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 347, 351 (8th Cir. 2006), but we cannot say that her due

process rights were violated. The missing documents were described at the merits

hearing, and the IJ had before him an index of those documents. Further, the

information was relevant to the issues of good moral character and presence in the

United States, both of which the IJ decided in Rubio’s favor. Rubio has failed to show

how she was prejudiced by proceeding without the documents at issue. See Flores v.

Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 727, 729-30 (8th Cir. 2003) (review of constitutional claims is de

novo); Lopez v. Heinauer, 332 F.3d 507, 512-13 (8th Cir. 2003) (to establish violation

of due process, alien must demonstrate both fundamental procedural error and that

error resulted in prejudice). 

Although Rubio also purports to raise a due process challenge to the IJ’s

“disregard of applicable case law,” she is essentially attacking the substance of the IJ’s

decision, which is unreviewable. See Zacarias-Velasquez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 429,

434 (8th Cir. 2007) (appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review cancellation-ofremoval decision because it is type of discretionary determination that Congress

shielded from appellate review); Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th

Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (“a petitioner may not create the jurisdiction that Congress

chose to remove simply by cloaking an abuse of discretion argument in constitutional

garb”) (quoting Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 2001)). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2008 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/10/2008 Entry ID: 3422384