Maria Del Campo-Pineda 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA DEL CAMPO-PINEDA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74856
Agency No. A046-636-875
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2010**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Maria Del Campo-Pineda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s order denying her application for cancellation of removal. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,
FILED
JUL 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74856 2
Aguilar Gonzales v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny
the petition for review.
The agency properly determined that Del Campo-Pineda acquired her legal
permanent resident status through fraud or misrepresentation and was therefore
ineligible for cancellation of removal. See Monet v. INS, 791 F.2d 752, 753 (9th
Cir. 1986); In re Koloamatangi, 23 I. & N. Dec. 548, 551 (BIA 2003). Del
Campo-Pineda fails to provide any authority that supports her contention that the
agency lacked jurisdiction to find that she acquired her legal permanent resident
status through fraud or misrepresentation where the district director had not served
her with a notice of intent to rescind. Del Campo-Pineda’s due process claim
therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring
error for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).
Del Campo-Pineda’s contention that the agency erred by failing to weigh all
the equities is unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --