Amelia Migdalia Munoz-Camey v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMELIA MIGDALIA MUNOZ-CAMEY,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70018
Agency No. A073-985-619
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 12, 2015 **
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,*** Senior
District Judge.
Amelia Munoz-Camey, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the
FILED
MAR 04 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).
*** The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for suspension of deportation.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for
review.
1. We have jurisdiction to review Munoz-Camey’s claim that she was
denied due process in her deportation proceedings before the IJ. See 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a)(2)(D); Reyes-Melendez v. INS, 342 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2003)
(“Notwithstanding the[] statutory limitations on judicial review, we retain the
power to review constitutional due process challenges to immigration decisions.”).
2. The BIA correctly concluded that the IJ did not violate Munoz-Camey’s
due process rights during her deportation proceeding. See Reyes-Melendez, 342
F.3d at 1006. Munoz-Camey failed to show that the IJ abandoned his neutral fact-
finding role, or that she did not receive a “reasonable opportunity to present
evidence on [her] behalf.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). IJs are
authorized to “interrogate, examine, and cross-examine” the petitioner and any
witnesses. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1). Here, no violation of Munoz-Camey’s due
process rights was shown where the IJ did no more than “ask[] tough questions or
assum[e] an unfriendly manner.” Perez-Lastor v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 773, 782 n.9
2

-- 2 of 3 --

(9th Cir. 2000); see also Antonio-Cruz v. I.N.S., 147 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir.
1998).1
3. Munoz-Camey has not shown that prejudice resulted from any due
process violation. See Antonio-Cruz, 147 F.3d at 1131.
Petition DENIED.
1 We agree with the BIA that the IJ’s tone was not a “model of judicial
temperament,” but conclude that his questioning did not rise to the level of a due
process violation.
3

-- 3 of 3 --