Case Name: Natalia LOBAS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-01
Citations: 223 F. App'x 721
Docket Number: No. 05-73119
Parties: Natalia LOBAS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 223
Pages: 721–722

Head Matter:
Natalia LOBAS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73119.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.
Filed March 1, 2007.
Homayun F. Zadeh, Law Office of Homayun F. Zadeh, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Emily A. Radford, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Molly L. Debusschere, Esq., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Natalia Lobas, a native of the former Soviet Union and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. See Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.
Lobas contends that she was denied a full and fair hearing because of inadequate interpretation services during her asylum hearing. This contention is unavailing because Lobas has not shown that the alleged faulty translations affected the outcome of the hearing. See Hartooni v. INS, 21 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir.1994).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.