Opinion
No. 04-75081.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed August 21, 2007.
Ted Laguatan, Law Offices of Ted Laguatan and Associates, Daly City, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Erika Ritt Fax, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A70-551-853.
Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Clarinda Tavu Valderrama, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings to apply for adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1018 (9th Cir. 2004), and review de novo constitutional challenges, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Valderrama's motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (a motion to reopen "must be filed no later than 90 days after . . . the final administrative decision"); Azanor, 364 F.3d at 1021. Valderrama's contention that the denial violates due process and equal protection is not persuasive. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that an alien must show error to prevail on a due process challenge).