LORENA VELAZQUEZ LOPEZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-72184 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 03 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LORENA VELAZQUEZ LOPEZ, Petitioner, No. 14-72184 Agency No. A087-596-524 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 25, 2016** Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Lorena Velazquez Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including due process * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The record does not support Velazquez Lopez’s contention that in denying her application for cancellation of removal for failure to establish the requisite hardship, the IJ assumed facts that were not in the record regarding the availability of other relatives to care for Velazquez Lopez’s parents. Rather, the IJ denied for lack of evidence regarding the availability of other relatives to care for Velazquez Lopez’s parents. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4) (an alien has the burden of establishing eligibility for relief from removal). Because the BIA denied Velazquez Lopez’s cancellation of removal application solely due to her failure to establish the requisite hardship, we may not review Velazquez Lopez’s contentions regarding good moral character. See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 14-72184
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.
