Elena Gonzalez Mendez v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-71745 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED MAR 02 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELENA GONZALEZ MENDEZ, Petitioner, No. 09-71745 Agency No. A073-859-621 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 15, 2011 ** Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Elena Gonzalez Mendez, 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 de novo questions of law, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d * 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). 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009), and we dismiss in part, and deny in part, the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ s discretionary denial of a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(11), and therefore we do not reach Gonzalez Mendez contention concerning the IJ s adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). Gonzalez Mendez contention that the IJ gave improper weight to one adverse factor does not raise a colorable due process claim, and therefore we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Gonzalez Mendez contention that the IJ erred by considering her deception with regard to her smuggling attempt is foreclosed by INS. v. Yueh-Shaio Yang, 519 U.S. 26, 30 (1996) (agency may consider initial and subsequent fraud in the adjudication of discretionary fraud waiver). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part, DENIED in part. 2 09-71745

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.