Laura Mesa-Valdez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAURA MESA-VALDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71481
Agency No. A074-323-635
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2014**
Submission Vacated January 15, 2015
Resubmitted April 24, 2015
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FISHER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Laura Mesa-Valdez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) decision denying her motion to reopen. We deny the petition.
FILED
APR 28 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 2 --

1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Mesa-Valdez’s
motion to reopen. Mesa-Valdez did not establish a reasonable likelihood that her
children would face exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if she were
removed to Mexico. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 2006). Her evidence did not establish the extent of
her current medical condition, what medical care she requires or why her relatives
in Mexico could not provide required care. See Patel v. INS, 741 F.2d 1134, 1137
(9th Cir. 1984).
2. The BIA did not violate the Due Process Clause by denying Mesa-
Valdez’s motion to reopen. Mesa-Valdez did not show a reasonable likelihood that
she would prevail on her application for cancellation of removal. Because the BIA
did not err in denying her motion, it did not violate her due process rights. See
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1013-14 (9th Cir. 2010); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000).
PETITION DENIED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --