Case Name: Gil Delatorre VELARDE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-25
Citations: 320 F. App'x 601
Docket Number: No. 07-74508
Parties: Gil Delatorre VELARDE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 320
Pages: 601–602

Head Matter:
Gil Delatorre VELARDE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74508.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2009.
Filed March 25, 2009.
John S. Rogers, Esquire, John S. Rogers & Associates, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Ali Manuchehry, Esquire, Margaret Kuehne Taylor, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, NVL-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gil Delatorre Velarde, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), and we review de novo due process claims, Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner's successive motion to reopen because the motion was numerically barred and failed to meet any regulatory exception. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3).
Petitioner's contention that the BIA violated due process by failing to consider the evidence of hardship he submitted with the motion therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.