Case Name: Ana E. Rodriguez GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-20
Citations: 309 F. App'x 149
Docket Number: No. 07-71362
Parties: Ana E. Rodriguez GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 309
Pages: 149–149

Head Matter:
Ana E. Rodriguez GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71362.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
Filed Jan. 20, 2009.
Ana E. Rodriguez Gutierrez, Ventura, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, John D. Williams, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ana E. Rodriguez Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner's motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than 37 months after the BIA's December 8, 2003 order dismissing Petitioner's appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
Petitioner's contention that the BIA's decision denying her motion to reopen violated due process fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
To the extent Petitioner seeks review of the BIA's December 8, 2003 order dismissing her appeal, we lack jurisdiction because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.