FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARISELA OROZCO DE MUNOZ, No. 09-72845
a.k.a. Marisela Orozco Cruz,
Agency No. A076-638-726
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Marisela Orozco de Munoz, 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 removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations and
questions of law. Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in
part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency correctly concluded that Orzoco de Munoz is ineligible to adjust
status because she is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) for having
accrued more than one year of unlawful presence in the United States and then
reentering without admission. See Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, No. 09-72603,
2012 WL 5077137, at *7 (9th Cir. Oct. 19, 2012) (en banc) (aliens who are
inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) are not eligible for adjustment of
status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Orozco de Munoz lacked good moral character under the catch-all provision of 8
U.S.C. § 1101(f). See Lopez-Castellanos v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir.
2006). Orozco de Munoz’s contention that the agency applied an incorrect legal
standard for determining moral character is not supported by the record. See
Matter of Guadarrama De Contreras, 24 I. & N. Dec. 625, 627 (BIA 2008).
In light of the determinations above, Orozco de Munoz’s contentions that
the agency’s denial of adjustment of status and cancellation of removal violated
2 09-72845
due process fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien
must show error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 09-72845