Sahr Mohamed Saleh Gomaa 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SAHR MOHAMED SALEH GOMAA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74578
Agency No. A095-127-238
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 10, 2010**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Sahr Mohamed Saleh Gomaa, a native and citizen of Egypt, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her motion to reconsider. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
FILED
SEP 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74578 2
a motion to reconsider and de novo claims of due process violations. See Cano-
Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Gomaa’s motion to
reconsider because Gomaa failed to identify any errors of fact or law in the IJ’s
July 12, 2007, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(2).
The IJ did not violate Gomaa’s due process rights where Gomaa does not
dispute the IJ allowed her to discuss her options for relief with her attorney and
offered her a short continuance to file an asylum application. See Ibarra-Flores v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (no due process violation exists
unless “the proceeding was so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented
from reasonably presenting his case”) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted); cf. Cano-Merida, 311 F.3d at 964-65 (due process violation where IJ
conducted off-the-record discussion with pro se petitioner and pre-judged the
merits of petitioner’s asylum claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --