From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cordova v. Lynch

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
May 2, 2016
649 F. App'x 518 (9th Cir. 2016)

Opinion

No. 14-71772

05-02-2016

IGNACIO GIL CORDOVA, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Agency No. A098-180-236 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Ignacio Gil Cordova, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

We are not persuaded by Cordova's contention that the laws governing cancellation of removal deprive his children, and the child for whom his wife is a guardian, of due process. See, e.g., Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 793-99 (1977) (rejecting a due process challenge involving the rights of citizens and their alien parent or child); Morales-Izquierdo v. Department of Homeland Sec., 600 F.3d 1076, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010), overruled in part on other grounds by Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504, 516 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (denial of discretionary relief does not violate petitioner's or citizen family member's substantive rights under the Due Process Clause).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Cordova v. Lynch

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
May 2, 2016
649 F. App'x 518 (9th Cir. 2016)
Case details for

Cordova v. Lynch

Case Details

Full title:IGNACIO GIL CORDOVA, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: May 2, 2016

Citations

649 F. App'x 518 (9th Cir. 2016)