Ana Cristina Dubon-Alfaro 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 suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NHY/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANA CRISTINA DUBON-ALFARO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72391
Agency No. A099-669-569
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.
Ana Cristina Dubon-Alfaro, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her motion to reopen removal
FILED
JAN 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

NHY/Research 07-72391 2
proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations,
Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003), and review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d
770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The agency acted within its discretion in denying Dubon-Alfaro’s motion to
reopen to rescind her removal order because the IJ properly ordered her removed in
absentia when she failed to appear at her immigration hearing. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(b)(5)(A), (C)(ii); Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000).
Dubon-Alfaro does not dispute that the Notice to Appear was personally served on
her, indicating the time and place of her proceedings and the consequences of
failure to appear at such proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). Dubon-Alfaro’s
contention that the BIA violated due process by not providing her with a transcript
of proceedings fails because she did not demonstrate prejudice. See Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring prejudice for a petitioner to prevail
on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --