Camargo Medina v. Holder , 383 F. App'x 621 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JUN 10 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    GERARDO CAMARGO MEDINA;                          No. 07-70929
    CAROLINA CAMARGO,
    Agency Nos. A079-537-720
    Petitioners,                                  A079-537-521
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted May 25, 2010 **
    Before:        CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    Gerardo Camargo Medina and Carolina Camargo, husband and wife and
    natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
    denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under
    *
    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).
    
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in
    immigration proceedings, Ram v. INS, 
    243 F.3d 510
    , 516 (9th Cir. 2001), and we
    grant the petition for review.
    The Camargos contend the IJ violated procedural due process by conducting
    a merits hearing on July 18, 2005, when the immigration court had given the
    Camargos notice of a master hearing on that date. Because the Camargos were
    thus prevented from presenting the testimony of their hardship witnesses, the
    proceedings were rendered “so fundamentally unfair that [they were] prevented
    from reasonably presenting [their] case.” Colmenar v. INS, 
    210 F.3d 967
    , 971 (9th
    Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Moreover, the Camargos demonstrated that
    additional testimony potentially may have affected the outcome of the proceedings.
    See Cano-Merida v. INS, 
    311 F.3d 960
    , 965 (9th Cir. 2002) (prejudice is shown
    where violation potentially affected outcome of the proceedings).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
    2                                      07-70929
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-70929

Citation Numbers: 383 F. App'x 621

Judges: Canby, Thomas, Fletcher

Filed Date: 6/10/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024