Maria Sanchez De Orozco v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-70813 (9th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED MAR 28 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA CONCEPSION SANCHEZ DE OROZCO, a.k.a. Concepcion SanchezRivera, No. 09-70813 Agency No. A077-463-527 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM * v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 8, 2011 ** Before: FARRIS, O SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Maria Concepsion Sanchez De Orozco, 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 * 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). cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency s continuous physical presence determination, Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2006), and review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency s determination that Sanchez De Orozco did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement where the record includes a Notice and Order of Expedited Removal as well as other government documents corroborating the expedited removal. See Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 511 (9th Cir. 2007) (expedited removal order interrupts an alien s continuous physical presence for cancellation purposes). Sanchez De Orozco s due process claim fails because the IJ properly denied her cancellation application on the basis that she failed to establish the requisite continuous physical presence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 09-70813
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.
