Elsa Villalobos Garcia v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jlf/Inventory
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELSA VILLALOBOS GARCIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74622
Agency No. A097-361-208
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Elsa Villalobos Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from the
Immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal.
FILED
JAN 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

jlf/Inventory 08-74622 2
The BIA determined that petitioner is ineligible for cancellation of removal
because she lacks a qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(d); Molina-
Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir. 2002). Petitioner alleged that the
qualifying relative provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D) violates the Equal
Protection Clause because there is no rational basis for distinguishing between
aliens who have qualifying relatives and those who do not for purposes of
cancellation of removal relief. Petitioner’s challenge to the constitutionality of the
statute is foreclosed. See Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th
Cir. 2003) (holding that placing aliens in removal, rather than deportation,
proceedings does not by itself amount to a due process violation); Hernandez-
Mezquita v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2002) (no equal protection
violation arising from placing aliens in removal rather than deportation
proceedings).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --