FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 27 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAQUEL CARVAJAL LIRA, No. 07-71024
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-196-589
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Raquel Carvajal Lira, 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 adjustment of
status and pretermitting her application for cancellation of removal. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including
claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, Hamazaspyan v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009), and review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion for remand, Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th
Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The IJ properly denied Lira’s application for adjustment of status on the
ground that she did not have an approved I-130 visa petition. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1255(a)(3); 8 C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(2)(i)(B). Moreover, Lira’s husband’s
withdrawal of the I-130 visa petition comported with the requirements of 8 C.F.R.
§ 205.1(a)(3)(i)(A), and the record does not support the contention that Lira’s
husband filed the withdrawal through coercion.
Contrary to Lira’s contention that the IJ violated due process by denying her
the opportunity to testify regarding hardship, the cancellation proceedings were not
“so fundamentally unfair that [she] was prevented from reasonably presenting [her]
case.” Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see
also Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 676 n.2 (9th Cir. 2004). Moreover, Lira
failed to demonstrate that additional testimony may have affected the outcome of
the proceedings. See Colmenar, 210 F.3d at 971 (requiring prejudice to prevail on
a due process challenge).
2 07-71024
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lira’s motion to remand for
further cancellation proceedings. Cf. Movsisian, 395 F.3d at 1098 (BIA abuses its
discretion when it acts “arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to the law”) (citation
omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 07-71024