Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves a petition for review by a Mexican national, Flores, challenging an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals which affirmed her removability and denied her application for cancellation of removal. The court reviewed the case under its jurisdiction conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252, focusing on questions of law and due process claims. Flores was deemed removable by the immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i) for alien smuggling, despite her defense of being merely a passenger. The judge also found her ineligible for cancellation of removal, as she failed to prove seven years of continuous physical presence after being admitted, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2). Flores' due process claims were dismissed, with the court referencing that the proceedings met necessary fairness standards and further testimony would not have changed the outcome, as aligned with Colmenar v. INS. Ultimately, the petition for review was denied, with the court's decision unreported and non-precedential, adhering to the Ninth Circuit rules.
Legal Issues Addressed
Due Process in Immigration Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Flores' due process claims were dismissed as the court found the proceedings were conducted fairly and further testimony would not alter the outcome.
Reasoning: Flores’ claims of due process violations were dismissed, with the court noting that the IJ's inquiries were sufficient and that the proceedings were not fundamentally unfair, as per Colmenar v. INS.
Eligibility for Cancellation of Removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Flores was found ineligible for cancellation of removal as she could not demonstrate seven years of continuous physical presence post-admission.
Reasoning: The IJ also determined that Flores was ineligible for cancellation of removal as she could not prove the required seven years of continuous physical presence after being 'admitted in any status,' as specified in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2) and § 1101(a)(13)(B).
Jurisdiction of Court under 8 U.S.C. § 1252subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court holds jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration Appeals' order concerning questions of law and due process claims.
Reasoning: The court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and reviews questions of law and due process claims de novo.
Precedential Value in Unpublished Dispositionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision is not published and does not serve as precedent except as provided under specific circuit rules.
Reasoning: The petition for review is denied, and the disposition is not published or considered precedent except as outlined in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Removability for Alien Smuggling under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The immigration judge determined that Flores was removable due to her involvement in alien smuggling, despite her claim of being just a passenger.
Reasoning: The IJ found Flores removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i) for her involvement in alien smuggling, rejecting her argument that she was merely a passenger in a vehicle with an illegal alien.