Maria De Los Angeles Zendejas 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARIA DE LOS ANGELES ZENDEJAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73400
Agency No. A095-447-695
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Maria De Los Angeles Zendejas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for adjustment of
status. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
FILED
NOV 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-73400 2
questions of law, and for substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact.
Blanco v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 714, 718 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
Contrary to Zendejas’ assertion, the IJ did not violate due process by
admitting the documents presented by the Department of Homeland Security to
show Zendejas had made a false claim to United States citizenship on June 23,
1999, because the documents were probative and their admission was
fundamentally fair. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Zendejas is
inadmissible, and therefore ineligible for adjustment of status, where the record
indicates she made a false claim to United States citizenship to gain entry to the
United States in 1999. See Pichardo v. INS, 216 F.3d 1198, 1201 (9th Cir. 2000)
(false claim to United States citizenship is a “non-waivable ground of
inadmissibility” under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)).
We lack jurisdiction to review Zendejas’ challenge to her 1999 expedited
removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A); Avendano-Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 365
F.3d 813, 818-19 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --