Case Name: Hernan LOPEZ-CABRERA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-02
Citations: 698 F. App'x 554
Docket Number: No. 16-70035
Parties: Hernan LOPEZ-CABRERA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 554–554

Head Matter:
Hernan LOPEZ-CABRERA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 16-70035
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 26, 2017
OCTOBER 2, 2017
Peter Hurtado, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Oil, Annette Marie Wietecha, Trial,- U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Hernán Lopez-Cabrera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S,C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims, and review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely where the motion was filed over two years after the order of removal became final and Lopez-Cabrera has not established that his motion falls within any exception to filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(i)-(iv).
Contrary to Lopez-Cabrera's contention, the BIA did not mischaracterize the motion to reopen or fail to properly address his contentions. Accordingly the BIA did not violate due process in denying the motion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must demonstrate error and substantial prejudice).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.