Case ID: f-appx_235/html/0623-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Clarinda Tavu VALDERRAMA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-75081.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2007.
    
    Filed Aug. 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.
    Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.