Camilla Telluselle, a.k.a. Camilla Elizabeth Charpentier, a.k.a. C. Alexandra… 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CAMILLA TELLUSELLE, a.k.a. Camilla
Elizabeth Charpentier, a.k.a. C. Alexandra
Telluselle, a.k.a. Camilla Alexandra
Telluselle, a.k.a. Camilla A. Tuleselle,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70149
Agency No. A200-864-839
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 14, 2013**
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Camilla Telluselle, a native and citizen of Sweden, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
FILED
AUG 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-70149 2
from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and
review de novo claims of due process violations. Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590
F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Telluselle failed to
maintain her F-1 nonimmigrant status where she testified that she was not enrolled
at Hawaii Pacific University or any other educational institution during the spring
2011 semester. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(5)(i) (describing requirements for
maintaining foreign student status, including “pursuing a full course of study at an
educational institution”). The agency therefore properly found Telluselle
removable for failing to maintain her nonimmigrant status. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(1)(C)(i).
Telluselle’s contention that she was denied due process during her removal
proceedings is not supported by the record. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967,
971 (9th Cir. 2000) (due process claims require showing that proceedings were “so
fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his
case”).
Telluselle failed to raise in her opening brief, and therefore waived, any
challenges to the BIA’s determination that she is not eligible for relief from

-- 2 of 3 --

12-70149 3
removal and to the BIA’s denial of her motion to remand. See Lopez-Vasquez v.
Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (a petitioner waives an issue by
failing to raise it in the opening brief).
Telluselle’s request that the court first review her civil lawsuit against
Hawaii Pacific University or hold her case in abeyance pending the results of her
appeal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Hawaii Pacific
University is denied as moot. See Telluselle v. Hawaii Pac. Univ., No. 12-17191
(9th Cir. June 17, 2013).
Telluselle’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --