FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELSA EMILIA SAMAYOA LANUZA; 

ELSA LOPEZ SAMAYOA, No. 07-71943

Petitioners, Agency Nos.

v.  A070-643-822

A073-972-112 ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney

General, OPINION

Respondent. 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 5, 2010*

Pasadena, California

Filed March 5, 2010

Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw and Consuelo M. Callahan,

Circuit Judges, and John W. Sedwick,** District Judge.

Per Curiam Opinion

*The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

**The Honorable John W. Sedwick, United States District Judge for the

District of Alaska, sitting by designation. 

3445
COUNSEL

Joseph S. Porta, Esq., Law Offices of Cohen, Porta, & Kim,

Los Angeles, California, for the petitioners.

3446 SAMAYOA LANUZA v. HOLDER
Kiley L. Kane, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, District of

Columbia, for the respondent.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Elsa Emilia Samayoa Lanuza (“Samayoa”) and her daughter, Elsa Lopez Samayoa (“Lopez”), are natives and citizens

of Guatemala. They petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of an Immigration

Judge’s (“IJ”) decision pretermitting their applications for

special rule cancellation of removal under Section 203 of the

Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act of 1997

(NACARA), Pub. L. No. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193-2201

(Nov. 19, 1997), amended by Pub. L. No. 105-139, 111 Stat.

2644, 2644-45 (Dec. 2, 1997).1 To the extent that we have

jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

claims of constitutional violations de novo. Torres-Aguilar v.

INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 2001). We dismiss in part

and deny in part. 

[1] The government argues, and Samayoa does not contest,

that we lack jurisdiction to consider Samayoa’s application

for relief. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant

Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-208,

§ 309(c)(5)(C)(ii), 110 Stat. 3009 (1996), expressly precludes

us from reviewing the BIA’s determination of eligibility for

NACARA § 203 relief. Section 309(c)(5)(C)(ii) provides that

“[a] determination by the Attorney General as to whether an

alien satisfies the requirements of clause (i) is final and shall

not be subject to review by any court.” IIRIRA

1The IJ and the BIA granted the petitioners’ request that Samayoa act

as the lead applicant, and that Lopez act as a derivative beneficiary of the

petition. 

SAMAYOA LANUZA v. HOLDER 3447
§ 309(c)(5)(C)(ii), as amended by NACARA, Pub. L. No.

105-100 (1997). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to determine

Samayoa’s statutory eligibility for NACARA § 203 relief.

[2] Samayoa also argues that she was denied due process

because the IJ determined that she was ineligible for

NACARA § 203 relief before she began to testify. The record,

however, belies this contention. The IJ reviewed all the record

evidence, heard counsel’s arguments and Samayoa’s testimony, allowed cross-examination, and directly questioned

Samayoa over the course of four hearings before making the

ineligibility determination. Therefore, the IJ did not violate

Samayoa’s constitutional right to due process by depriving

her of a full and fair hearing and a reasonable opportunity to

present evidence on her behalf.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction in part, and

deny in part. 

DISMISSED; DENIED. 

3448 SAMAYOA LANUZA v. HOLDER