Case Name: Rafaela JIMENEZ LUNA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-02
Citations: 347 F. App'x 327
Docket Number: No. 07-72080
Parties: Rafaela JIMENEZ LUNA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 347
Pages: 327–328

Head Matter:
Rafaela JIMENEZ LUNA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72080.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
Filed Oct. 2, 2009.
John Ayala, Esquire, Alma Cobos-Ayala, Cobos & Ayala, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Susan Houser, Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, 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: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rafaela Jimenez Luna, 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. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.
We agree with the BIA's conclusion that the IJ based her decision on the evidence Jimenez Luna presented. Therefore, Jimenez Luna's claim that she was deprived of a full and fair hearing fails. Cf. Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.