LAURA MESA-VALDEZ V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-71481 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 28 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LAURA MESA-VALDEZ, Petitioner, No. 11-71481 Agency No. A074-323-635 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 9, 2014** Submission Vacated January 15, 2015 Resubmitted April 24, 2015 San Francisco, California Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FISHER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Laura Mesa-Valdez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying her motion to reopen. We deny the petition. * 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). 1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Mesa-Valdez’s motion to reopen. Mesa-Valdez did not establish a reasonable likelihood that her children would face exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if she were removed to Mexico. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 2006). Her evidence did not establish the extent of her current medical condition, what medical care she requires or why her relatives in Mexico could not provide required care. See Patel v. INS, 741 F.2d 1134, 1137 (9th Cir. 1984). 2. The BIA did not violate the Due Process Clause by denying Mesa- Valdez’s motion to reopen. Mesa-Valdez did not show a reasonable likelihood that she would prevail on her application for cancellation of removal. Because the BIA did not err in denying her motion, it did not violate her due process rights. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1013-14 (9th Cir. 2010); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000). PETITION DENIED. 2

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.