FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GRASIELA LEDEZMA-GALVAN, aka No. 07-72740
Graciela Ledesma,
Agency No. A079-625-980
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010 **
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Grasiela Ledezma-Galvan, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an
immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
IH/Research
§ 1252. We review de novo constitutional questions and questions of law,
Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the
petition for review.
The BIA properly concluded that Ledezma-Galvan was ineligible for pre-
hearing voluntary departure because she failed to withdraw her application for
cancellation of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(b)(1)(i)(B). Contrary to
Ledezma-Galvan’s assertion, an alien’s eligibility for voluntary departure is a
question of law which the BIA is permitted by regulation to review de novo. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii). It follows that Ledezma-Galvan’s due process claim
fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and
prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
IH/Research 2 07-72740