FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 30 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUAJUN LIU, No. 11-73020
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-045-230
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013 **
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Huajun Liu, a native and citizen of China, 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 asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
*
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 is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process
challenges to immigration decisions. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th
Cir. 2004). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Liu’s contentions that the IJ violated her
due process rights by allowing multiple direct and cross examinations and by
failing to specify the evidentiary bases for the adverse credibility finding, because
she failed to exhaust these contentions before the BIA. See id. at 678 (court lacks
jurisdiction to consider correctable procedural due process challenges that have not
been administratively exhausted).
Liu’s contention that the BIA deprived her of due process by failing to
specify the evidentiary basis for upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility finding is
not supported by the record, because the BIA provided specific and cogent reasons
in support of its determination, with citations to the record. Thus, we reject her
contention that the proceedings were fundamentally unfair and deprived her of due
process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and
prejudice to demonstrate a due process claim). Liu does not otherwise challenge
the agency’s adverse credibility finding.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 11-73020