Maria Antonia Rodriguez-Parede v. Eric H. Holder Jr. ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA ANTONIA RODRIGUEZ- No. 08-73867
PAREDES,
Agency No. A027-199-904
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Maria Antonia Rodriguez-Paredes, a native and citizen of El Saldavor,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
her motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen
and review de novo due process claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785,
791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Paredes’ motion
to reopen as untimely because she filed the motion more than eighteen years after
the BIA’s final order of deportation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Rodriguez-
Paredes’ contention that reopening is warranted because she lacked adequate notice
under Flores-Chavez v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2004), is misplaced
because she appeared for her scheduled hearing. It follows that Rogriguez-Paredes
has not established a due process violation. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246
(9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must show error and prejudice to prevail on a due
process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-73867