FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 22 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARMELITA CORPUZ FELISCO, No. 14-71520
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-401-772
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JEFF B. SESSIONS, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Carmelita Corpuz Felisco, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) discretionary denial of adjustment of status and a
waiver of fraud or misrepresentation under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i). Our jurisdiction is
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as
provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims and
questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Corpuz Felisco contends the agency violated due process in admitting,
considering, and mischaracterizing evidence. However, her alleged due process
claims fail because she has not established error and prejudice. See Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (a valid due process claim in the removal
context requires a showing of both “error and substantial prejudice”).
The record does not support Corpuz Felisco’s contention that the IJ revealed
a personal bias against her such that she was denied a full and fair hearing. See
Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 926 (9th Cir. 2007) (allegations of
bias were undermined by the IJ’s professional behavior and the IJ’s decision
considered all issues raised by alien).
To the extent Corpuz Felisco contends the agency abused its discretion in
denying adjustment of status and a waiver, we lack jurisdiction to review that
discretionary determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 14-71520