
    Carmelita CORPUZ FELISCO, Petitioner, v. Jeff B. SESSIONS, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-71520
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 22, 2017
    Eric Robert Welsh, Reeves & Associates, APLC, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner
    OIL, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Matthew Allan Spurlock, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carmelita Corpuz Felisco, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) discretionary denial of adjustment of status and a waiver of fraud or misrepresentation under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims and questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Corpuz Felisco contends the agency violated due process in admitting, considering, and mischaracterizing evidence. However, her alleged due process claims fail because she has not established error and prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (a valid due process claim in the removal context requires a showing of both “error and substantial prejudice”).

The record does not support Corpuz Felisco’s contention that the IJ revealed a personal bias against her such that she was denied a full and fair hearing. See Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 926 (9th Cir. 2007) (allegations of bias were undermined by the IJ’s professional behavior and the IJ’s decision considered all issues raised by alien).

To the extent Corpuz Felisco contends the agency abused its discretion in denying adjustment of status and a waiver, we lack jurisdiction to review that discretionary determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     