Case Name: Arely Yazmin Guerra CRUZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-27
Citations: 429 F. App'x 679
Docket Number: No. 09-71933
Parties: Arely Yazmin Guerra CRUZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 429
Pages: 679–680

Head Matter:
Arely Yazmin Guerra CRUZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71933.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2011.
Filed April 27, 2011.
Joubin Nasseri, Nasseri Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Joseph D. Hardy, Jr., Esquire, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Arely Yazmin Guerra Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reissue its previous decision denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations. Hernandez-Velasquez v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying Guerra Cruz's motion to reissue because it had properly mailed the earlier decision at Guerra Cruz's last known addresses. See Singh v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1170, 1172 (9th Cir.2007) (BIA fulfills its statutory duty of service if the decision is mailed to the appropriate party at his or her address of record); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.