N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT * M AR IA DE LOUR

DES SANTANA SANTANA, AKA Ye c ic a Santa n a , Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-70997 Age n c y No. A089-380-464 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Oc tobe r 6, 2014 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : PAEZ, B Y B EE, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc u i t Judge s. Pe titione r-Appe lla

nt M aria De Lourde s Santa

na Santa n a (“ Santa

n a ” ) se e ks re vie w of the Im

m igration Judge ’ s (“ IJ’ s ” ) an d the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ s (“ B IA’ s” ) te rm inat ion of he r re m ova l proc e e dings a nd the De pa

rtm e nt 

# FIL ED OCT 10 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** The pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).of Hom e la

nd Se c urity ’ s (“ DHS’ s” ) M arc h 30, 2012 re insta te m e nt of he r 2004 e xpe dite d re m o v a l orde r. She a lle ge s tha t both re sulte d

in viola tions of he r due proc e s s rights. W e de ny re l ie f. 1 W e re vie w que stions of la w de novo, inc luding que stions pe rta ining to the viola tion of a n a lie n’ s due proc e ss rights a n d our own jurisdic tion. H amazaspy an v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th C ir. 2009); Luu-Le v . I.N .S. , 224 F.3d 911, 914 (9th C ir. 2000). 1. Pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a)(2)(D), this c ourt doe s not ha ve jurisdic tion to re v ie w Santa n a ’ s due proc e ss c la im s a rising out of the

B IA’ s de c ision a ffirm ing thete rm inat ion of he r form a l re m o va l proc e e dings. Although, § 1252 pe rm its thec ourt to re vie w c onstitutiona l c la im s on a

pe tition for re vie w,

“ ‘ [t] he c are fully

c ra fte d c ongre ssiona l sc he m e gove rning re vie wof de c i sions of the B IA lim its this c ourt’ s jurisdic tion to the re vie w of fina l orde rs of re m ova l,’ ‘ e ve n whe re a c onstitutiona

l c la i m or que stion of la

w is ra ise d.’ ” Ortiz-Alfaro v. Holde r , 694 F.3d 955, 957 (9th C ir. 2012) (quoting Alc ala v . Holde r , 563 F.3d 1009, 1013, 1016 (9th C ir. 2009)). Sa nta na se e ks re vie w of re m ova l proc e e d ings tha t the IJ and B IA te rm inate d; ne ithe r the IJ nor the B IA issue d a fina l orde r of re m ova l. In

1 B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c ts a

nd proc e dura l history , we do not re sta

te the m he re e xc e pt a s ne c e s sa ry to e xpla in our de c i sion. 2the a

bse nc e of a

fina l orde r this c ourt la c ks jurisdic tion to re vie w Santa na ’ s due proc e s s c la im s a

rising out of her te rm inat e d re m ova l proc e e dings. The se c la im s are t he re fore dism isse d. 2. While this c ourt ha s jurisdic tion to re v ie w re insta t e d e xpe dite d re m ova l orde rs, Villa-Anguiano v

. Holde r , 727 F.3d 873, 875 (9th C ir. 2013), thec ourt’ s re vie w of suc h orde rs is “ e xpre ssly lim it[e d] . . . to ha

be a s pe titions alle ging tha t the pe titione r is not a

n a lie n or wa s ne ve r subje c t to a n e xpe dite d re m ova l orde r.” Morale s-Izquie rdo v . Gonzale

s , 486 F.3d 484, 498 (9th C ir. 2007) (e n ba n c ); se e also G arc ia de

Rinc on v . De

p’t of Home land Se c . , 539 F.3d 1133, 1138–39 (9th C ir. 2008) (re fe re nc ing 8 U.S.C . § 1252(e )). He re , Santa na doe s not de ny

he r a lie na ge or he r prior re m ova l. He r a lle g at ions do not wa rrant a grant of re lie f. 3. Fina lly , Santa

na argue s tha

t the de nia l of c o unse l during the re insta te m e nt proc e e dings viola

te d he r due proc e ss rights. W he n a pe titione r c la im s a proc e dura l due proc e ss viola tion, she“ m

ust pre se nt pla

u sible sc e na

rios in whic h the outc om e of the proc e e dings would ha ve be e n diffe re nt” ha d

a m ore

“ e l a borate proc e ss” be e n provide d. Morale s-Izquie rdo , 486 F.3d a

t 495 (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). He re , in thec onte xt of re insta t e m e nt proc e e dings, the re is no right to c o unse l be fore a DHS offic e r. Taw adrus v . Ashc roft , 364 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th C ir. 2004); M

orale z-Izquie rdo , 486 F.3d a

t 497. Furthe rm ore , Santa na 3first ra ise d he r a lle gations of fe ar of re turning to M e xic o on a ppe a l but proffe re d no e vide n c e of a c tua l pe rse c ution to herse lf or he r fam ily . Santa na fa ile d to show that he r due proc e ss rights were viola te d or she wa s pre

judic e d. The pe tition is DISM ISSE D in pa rt a nd DE NIE D in pa

rt.

4