MARIA MENDOZA MADRIGAL V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-72007 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 23 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA GUADALUPE MENDOZA MADRIGAL, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-72007 Agency No. A078-081-026 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Immigration Judge’s Decision Submitted March 13, 2018** Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Maria Guadalupe Mendoza Madrigal, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that she did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico, and thus is not entitled to relief from her reinstated removal order. We * 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). have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings, Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016), and we review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. We reject, as unsupported by the record, Mendoza Madrigal’s contention that the IJ violated her due process rights or otherwise failed to adequately review the asylum officer’s determination. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). Apart from her due process contentions, Mendoza Madrigal does not challenge the IJ’s determination that she did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico, and therefore has waived any such challenge. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-72007

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.