REBECCA LOPEZ-VALDEZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-71898 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED SEP 01 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT REBECCA LOPEZ-VALDEZ, Petitioner, No. 13-71898 Agency No.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. SandovalLuna 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

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.