FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADA VERALI PERDOMO DE No. 09-73318
APARICIO,
Agency No. A088-324-457
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2014**
Pasadena, California
Before: PAEZ and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior District
Judge.***
*
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).
***
The Honorable J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.
Ada Verali Perdomo de Aparicio petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her motion to file an untimely brief,
alleging that the BIA’s decision violated her rights under the Due Process Clause
of the United States Constitution. Perdomo de Aparicio also argues that the BIA
violated her due process rights by affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
decision without an opinion. Finding no error, we deny the petition.
The record reflects that the BIA mailed notice of the briefing schedule and
applicable deadlines to the appropriate address and that Perdomo de Aparicio
received them with adequate time to request an extension. The BIA’s briefing
schedule clearly stated that all requests for extensions had to be received before the
brief was due on July 9, 2009. Perdomo de Aparicio argues that her brief was late
because her former counsel made an unreasonable demand for payment of fees
before filing. However, even if Perdomo de Aparicio’s former counsel was
responsible for the missed deadline, there is no basis for finding that the BIA
violated Perdomo de Aparicio’s due process rights. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d
1007, 1013 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[A] petitioner’s due process rights are not violated []
where the failure to file the brief on time is the result of the petitioner’s counsel’s
mistake.”). In other words, there is no constitutional violation because the BIA did
nothing to compromise Perdomo de Aparicio’s constitutional rights. See Rojas-
2
Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 822 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that where the
failure to file a timely brief was not the fault of the government agency, there is no
due process violation).
In the alternative, Perdomo de Aparicio argues that the BIA violated her due
process rights because it “summarily dismissed” her appeal. The BIA did not
summarily dismiss the appeal, but rather affirmed the IJ’s decision without an
opinion, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4). The BIA’s use of this streamlining
procedure complied with the applicable regulation and did not violate due process.
See Salvador-Calleros v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 959, 963 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing
Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-52 (9th Cir. 2004)).
PETITION DENIED.
3