Thi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

The pane l unani m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a) (2). NOT F OR P UB L I CA T I ON UN I TE D STATE S COURT OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CI RCUI T J O SE A LB ER TO V A R G A S P ER EZ and M A RTH A Y O LA N D A V A RG A S, P et i t i o n ers, v. E R IC H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e y G e n e ra l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 70167 A ge nc y N os . A 095- 444- 293

A 073- 956- 274 M E M OR AN DU M *

O n Pet i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ard o f I m m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls Subm i tt e d D e c e m be r14, 2010 ** B efore: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcuitJu d g es. Jo se A l b ert o V argas P erez and M arth a Y o l an d a V argas, h u sb an dan dw i fe and na t i ve s and c i t i z e ns of M e xi c o, pe t i t i on pr o s e f orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “BI A ” ) or de rdi s m i s s i ng the i rappe a l f r om an i m m i gr a t i on ju d g e ’ s ( “ I J ” ) r e m o v a l o r d e r . W e h a v e ju r is d ic ti o n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e 

# FI L ED DEC 27 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U . S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS09- 70167 2 r evi ew f or s ub st ant i alevi dence the agency’s cont i nu ou s phy si ca l pre se nce d e te rm in a ti o n , L an di n-Za vala v. G on zales , 4 8 8 F . 3 d1 1 5 0 , 1 1 5 1 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ), an dreview d e n o v o cl ai m s o f du e p rocess v i o l at i o n s i n i m m i g rat i o n p roceed i n g s, Ra m v . I NS , 2 4 3 F . 3 d5 1 0 , 5 1 6 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) . W e d e n y th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. The a ge nc y pr ope r l y c onc l ude d tha tbe c aus e the f e m a l e pe t i t i one rw a s the subj ec tof an exp edi t ed r em ov alorderthati nt errup t ed hercont i nu ou s phy si ca l p re s e n c e s h e w a s s ta tu to rily in e lig ib le fo r c an c e lla tio n o f r e m o v a l. See 8 U. S. C. § 1 2 2 9 b (b)(1)(A ); Juarez -R am os v. G on zales , 485 F. 3d 509, 512 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( an e xpe di t e d r e m ova l or de ri nt e rrupt s an a l i e n’ s c ont i nuous phys i c a l pr e s e nc e f or can cel l at i o n p u rpo ses). T h e B IA p rop erl y ref

u sedt o co n si d er th e h ardsh i p ev i d en ce p et i t i o n ers s ub m itte df

o rth e f ir s t t im e o n ap p e a l. See 8 C . F . R . 1 0 0 3 . 1 (d)(3)(i v ). P et i t i o n ers’ cl ai m th atth e B IA ’s f

ai l u re t o co n si d er th i s ev i d en ce v i o l at eddu e p rocess therefore f a il s . Se e La ta v . I

NS , 2 0 4 F .3 d1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 5 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) ( re q u irin g e rr o r to p r e v a il o n du e p r o c e s s c la im ) . P et i t i o n ers’ cl ai m th atth e IJ violat eddu e p rocess b y d en y i n g th ei r r eq u est f or acont i nu ance i s unavai l i ng because they h ave notdem on str at ed thatthe09- 70167 3 o u tc o m e o f th e p ro c e e d in g s m ay h a v e b e e n a ff e c te db y th e d e n ia l. Se e I barraFlores v. G on zales , 4 3 9 F .3 d6 1 4 , 6 2 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . T o th e e x te n t p e titio n e rs c o n te n dth at th e B IA fa ile dto c o n s id e r s o m e o r a ll of the e vi de nc e the y s ubm i tt e d w i th the i rm ot i on, the y ha ve notove r c om e the pr e s um pt i on tha tthe B I A di d r e vi e w the r e c or d. See Fran co-R osendo v. G on zales , 4 5 4 F .3 d9 6 5 , 9 6 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . P E T I T I ON F OR R E VI E W DE NI E D.