AMELIA MUNOZ-CAMEY V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-70018 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED MAR 04 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AMELIA MIGDALIA MUNOZ-CAMEY, No. 12-70018 Agency No. A073-985-619 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 12, 2015** Pasadena, California Before: GRABER and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,*** Senior District Judge. Amelia Munoz-Camey, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming 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). *** The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for suspension of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. 1. We have jurisdiction to review Munoz-Camey’s claim that she was denied due process in her deportation proceedings before the IJ. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Reyes-Melendez v. INS, 342 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Notwithstanding the[] statutory limitations on judicial review, we retain the power to review constitutional due process challenges to immigration decisions.”). 2. The BIA correctly concluded that the IJ did not violate Munoz-Camey’s due process rights during her deportation proceeding. See Reyes-Melendez, 342 F.3d at 1006. Munoz-Camey failed to show that the IJ abandoned his neutral factfinding role, or that she did not receive a “reasonable opportunity to present evidence on [her] behalf.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). IJs are authorized to “interrogate, examine, and cross-examine” the petitioner and any witnesses. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1). Here, no violation of Munoz-Camey’s due process rights was shown where the IJ did no more than “ask[] tough questions or assum[e] an unfriendly manner.” Perez-Lastor v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 773, 782 n.9 2 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Antonio-Cruz v. I.N.S., 147 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 1998).1 3. Munoz-Camey has not shown that prejudice resulted from any due process violation. See Antonio-Cruz, 147 F.3d at 1131. Petition DENIED. 1 We agree with the BIA that the IJ’s tone was not a “model of judicial temperament,” but conclude that his questioning did not rise to the level of a due process violation. 3
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.
