Case ID: f-appx_246/html/0430-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Imelda REYES-SALAZAR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-75991.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2007.
    
    Filed Aug. 22, 2007.
    Hiram W. Kwan, Esq., Law Office of Hiram W. Kwan, Los Angeles, 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, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Marion E. Guy-ton, Esq., 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

Imelda Reyes-Salazar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion and we review due process challenges de novo. Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not violate Reyes-Salazar’s due process rights or abuse its discretion when it denied her motion to reopen. The BIA correctly determined that Reyes-Salazar was not eligible for repapering because she was served with a Notice to Appear on November 4, 1997, and thus, already in removal proceedings. See, e.g., Alcaraz v. INS, 384 F.3d 1150, 1154 n. 1 (9th Cir.2004) (“eligibility for repapering is conditioned on aliens being disadvantaged by the retroactive stop-time rule.”).

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