Cheryl Brigitte Zambarrano-Rut v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 08-74228 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED OCT 01 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHERYL BRIGITTE ZAMBARRANORUTLEDGE, No. 08-74228 Agency No. A029-084-602 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM * v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Cheryl Brigitte Zambarrano-Rutledge, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the * 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). agency s finding of removability, Nakamoto v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 874, 881 (9th Cir. 2004), and de novo questions of law, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency s finding that the government met its burden of proving that Zambarrano-Rutledge was removable for obtaining permanent residence in the United States through a fraudulent marriage where she voluntarily admitted to the Customs and Border Patrol officer that she had married a United States citizen solely to obtain lawful residence in the United States. See Nakamoto, 363 F.3d at 882; see also Barragan-Lopez v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2007). Zambarrano-Rutledge s due process claim therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim). Zambarrano-Rutledge s remaining contentions are unavailing. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 08-74228

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.