Aida Cristina Palma v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AIDA CRISTINA PALMA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71821
Agency No. A074-424-624
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Aida Christina Palma, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s order denying her motion to reopen deportation proceedings
conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
FEB 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo
constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Palma’s motion to reopen
based on lack of notice of her hearing location, where Palma received written
notice of the place of her hearing, did not provide sufficient evidence to establish
that her hearing did not occur at this location, and does not contend that she
appeared for her hearing at the wrong location. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(A)(2) (a motion to reopen to rescind an in absentia order may
be filed at any time if “the alien demonstrates that he or she did not receive notice
. . . and the failure to appear was through no fault of the alien.”). Because this
determination is dispositive of the issue of notice, we do not reach Palma’s
remaining contentions on that topic.
The BIA did not violate Palma’s due process rights in declining to grant her
request for a transcript of her in absentia hearing, where the BIA informed Palma
of her ability to listen to audio recordings of the hearing and there is no obligation
for the BIA to provide a transcript. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must show error and
prejudice); cf. Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1208 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[I]n lieu of
09-71821 2

-- 2 of 3 --

providing a transcript, the immigration court may record [bond] hearings and make
the audio recordings available for appeal upon request.”).
In her opening brief, Palma fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any
challenge to the agency’s denial of her motion to reopen to apply for new relief as
untimely. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (a
petitioner waives a contention by failing to raise it in the opening brief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
09-71821 3

-- 3 of 3 --