ALICIA GONZALEZ FLORES V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-73231 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALICIA GONZALEZ FLORES, Petitioner, No. 12-73231 Agency No. A088-450-252 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 17, 2013** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Alicia Gonzalez Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due * 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). process violations in immigration proceedings, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review. Gonzalez Flores due process claim fails because Gonzalez Flores was given the opportunity to present witnesses on her behalf, she failed to request a continuance when they did not appear, and she failed to demonstrate that the absence of their testimony prejudiced her. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim). Gonzalez Flores failed to challenge in her opening brief the BIA s determination that her removal from the United States does not violate the rights of her United States citizen children, and this claim is therefore waived. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED 2 12-73231

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.