Leticia Torres Garcia v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 18 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LETICIA TORRES GARCIA; et al., No. 08-74940
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A076-456-263
A076-456-264
v. A076-456-265
A076-456-266
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent. MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011 **
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Leticia Torres Garcia and her three children, natives and citizens of Mexico,
petition for review of the Board of Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional
*
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).
violations in immigration proceedings. See Avila-Sanchez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d
1037, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Petitioners’ contention that the IJ violated due process by severing their case
from that of Jaime Soria Garcia fails because they did not demonstrate prejudice.
See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring prejudice to
prevail on a due process challenge). Similarly, petitioners failed to establish that
they were prejudiced by the IJ’s issuance of a summary decision. Id.We lack jurisdiction over petitioners’ contention that the IJ failed to issue a
written memorandum summarizing the oral decision in accordance with 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.37 because that contention was not exhausted before the BIA. See Barron
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
We also lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision not to
administratively close proceedings. See Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d
1114, 1118-20 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 08-74940