Case Name: Gloria VILLAFAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-22
Citations: 423 F. App'x 702
Docket Number: No. 09-70311
Parties: Gloria VILLAFAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 423
Pages: 702–703

Head Matter:
Gloria VILLAFAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-70311.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 22, 2011.
Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Lori Warlick, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gloria Villafan, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying her application for cancellation of removal and denying her motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA used the correct hardship standard in analyzing Villafan's cancellation of removal application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D).
We need not reach Villafan's challenges to the IJ's decision because the BIA reviewed the decision de novo. See Brezi-lien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 411 (9th Cir.2009) ("Any error committed by the IJ will be rendered harmless by the Board's application of the correct legal standard.").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.