Maria Zendejas v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 08-73400 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOV 01 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA DE LOS ANGELES ZENDEJAS, Petitioner, No. 08-73400 Agency No. A095-447-695 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 19, 2010 ** Before: O SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Maria De Los Angeles Zendejas, 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 ) decision denying her application for adjustment of status. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo * 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). questions of law, and for substantial evidence the agency s findings of fact. Blanco v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 714, 718 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Contrary to Zendejas assertion, the IJ did not violate due process by admitting the documents presented by the Department of Homeland Security to show Zendejas had made a false claim to United States citizenship on June 23, 1999, because the documents were probative and their admission was fundamentally fair. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995). Substantial evidence supports the agency s determination that Zendejas is inadmissible, and therefore ineligible for adjustment of status, where the record indicates she made a false claim to United States citizenship to gain entry to the United States in 1999. See Pichardo v. INS, 216 F.3d 1198, 1201 (9th Cir. 2000) (false claim to United States citizenship is a non-waivable ground of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)). We lack jurisdiction to review Zendejas challenge to her 1999 expedited removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A); Avendano-Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 813, 818-19 (9th Cir. 2004). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 08-73400
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
