Rosalba Ramirez-Perez v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General

Good Law
196 A.L.R. Fed. 745·2003 Daily Journal DAR 8006·336 F.3d 1001·2003 WL 21674495·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6371
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 18, 200302-71038California2,415 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nelson, J.

Rosalba Ramirez-Perez appeals the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her request for cancellation of removal. She asserts two due process challenges. First, she argues that the BIA’s interpretation of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” violates her due process rights. Second, she argues that the BIA’s use of its summary affirmance (“streamlining”) procedures, whereby a single BIA member decides an appeal without a separate opinion, violates her procedural due process rights.

We reject both claims. We have jurisdiction to review whether the BIA’s interpretation of the hardship standard violates the Constitution. However, the BIA’s interpretation is well vrithin the broad bounds of the statutory language and does not violate due process. We farther hold that the BIA’s streamlining procedures do not violate due process. Thus, we deny the petition.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A citizen of Mexico, Ramirez-Perez came to the United States illegally. On April 9, 1998, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) issued a notice to appear. Ramirez-Perez conceded de-portability and requested cancellation of removal. The Immigration…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.