Rebecca Lopez-Valdez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REBECCA LOPEZ-VALDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71898
Agency No. A079-222-549
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Rebecca Lopez-Valdez, 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”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
FILED
SEP 01 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 --

continue, and review de novo due process claims and questions of law. Sandoval-
Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847,
850-51 (9th Cir. 2004). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Lopez-Valdez’s challenges to her two 2001
expedited removal orders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2); Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t.
of Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 1133, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that “[s]ection
1252(e) only permits review of expedited removal orders in a habeas corpus
petition”).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
Lopez-Valdez’s 2001 expedited removal orders prevented her from establishing
the ten years of continuous physical presence required for cancellation of removal.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 511 (9th
Cir. 2007) (expedited removal interrupts an alien’s continuous physical presence
for cancellation purposes).
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying a second continuance
where Lopez-Valdez did not show good cause for an additional continuance. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a continuance for good cause shown).
13-71898 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Lopez-Valdez has failed to establish a due process violation resulting from
her alleged inability to collaterally attack her expedited orders of removal before
the IJ. See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(C); 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).
Finally, we deny Lopez-Valdez’s motion to stay voluntary departure and
removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i); Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962 (9th Cir.
2011) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
13-71898 3

-- 3 of 3 --