Case Name: Araceli ACEVEDO URBINA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-14
Citations: 234 F. App'x 601
Docket Number: No. 05-75743
Parties: Araceli ACEVEDO URBINA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 601–602

Head Matter:
Araceli ACEVEDO URBINA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75743.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 16, 2007.
Filed June 14, 2007.
Araceli Acevedo Urbina, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
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, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., Stacy S. Paddack, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Araceli Acevedo Urbino, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the denial of her application for cancellation of removal for lack of a qualifying relative (8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D)). She contends that the qualifying relative requirement violates due process and equal protection. Acevedo's constitutional claims are foreclosed. See Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that placing aliens in removal, rather than deportation, proceedings does not by itself amount to a due process violation); Hernandez-Mezquita v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (9th Cir.2002) (no equal protection violation arising from placing aliens in removal rather than deportation proceedings).
The issuance of our mandate shall be stayed for 60 days from the filing of our disposition of the petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.