Norma Judith Paiz Cruz v. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Kenneth F. Ripple, Senior United States Circuit Judge
for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NORMA JUDITH PAIZ CRUZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-73048
Agency No. A070-828-894
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted November 3, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, RIPPLE, ** and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Norma Paiz Cruz petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ affirmance of the immigration judge’s ("IJ") denial of Petitioner’s
application for cancellation of removal. Reviewing the procedural due process
FILED
NOV 18 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
claim de novo, Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009), we
grant the petition.
We have jurisdiction over colorable constitutional claims alleging a violation
of procedural due process. Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th
Cir. 2009). The government’s argument that we lack jurisdiction over claims
alleging substantive due process violations is, therefore, inapposite.
The IJ permitted cross-examination of Petitioner before direct examination,
disregarded evidence, prejudged issues, cut off relevant testimony, and failed to
discuss (or, apparently, even to consider) relevant evidence. Considering "the
cumulative effect of the several due process violations," Zolotukhin v. Gonzales,
417 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir. 2005), we hold that "the challenged proceeding was
so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting
[her] case," Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, the evidence and testimony concerned a
central issue in determining Petitioner’s eligibility for relief, namely, the hardship
that her American-citizen children would suffer; consequently, "the outcome of the
proceeding may have been affected" by the IJ’s actions. Tampubolon v. Holder,
610 F.3d 1056, 1063 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Petition GRANTED; case REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --