Case Name: Olimpia Jacqueline REYES-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-06
Citations: 236 F. App'x 300
Docket Number: No. 05-73839
Parties: Olimpia Jacqueline REYES-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 236
Pages: 300–301

Head Matter:
Olimpia Jacqueline REYES-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73839.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 16, 2007.
Filed June 6, 2007.
Law Office of Victor Martinez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Anthony P. Nicastro, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Olimpia Jacqueline Reyes-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order affirming an immigration judge's decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims in immigration proceedings, see Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.
Reyes-Flores' contention that she was not given the opportunity to present evidence that her criminal conviction involved a controlled substance that did not fall within the federal definition is not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.