Rebecca Lopez-Valdez v. Loretta E. Lynch , 613 F. App'x 671 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 01 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REBECCA LOPEZ-VALDEZ, No. 13-71898
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-222-549
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Rebecca Lopez-Valdez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
*
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).
continue, and review de novo due process claims and questions of law. Sandoval-
Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847,
850-51 (9th Cir. 2004). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Lopez-Valdez’s challenges to her two 2001
expedited removal orders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2); Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t.
of Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 1133, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that “[s]ection
1252(e) only permits review of expedited removal orders in a habeas corpus
petition”).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
Lopez-Valdez’s 2001 expedited removal orders prevented her from establishing
the ten years of continuous physical presence required for cancellation of removal.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 511 (9th
Cir. 2007) (expedited removal interrupts an alien’s continuous physical presence
for cancellation purposes).
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying a second continuance
where Lopez-Valdez did not show good cause for an additional continuance. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a continuance for good cause shown).
2 13-71898
Lopez-Valdez has failed to establish a due process violation resulting from
her alleged inability to collaterally attack her expedited orders of removal before
the IJ. See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(C); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must show error and
prejudice).
Finally, we deny Lopez-Valdez’s motion to stay voluntary departure and
removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i); Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962 (9th Cir.
2011) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 13-71898