Case Name: Maria Socorro AGASINO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-10
Citations: 355 F. App'x 1001
Docket Number: No. 05-71468
Parties: Maria Socorro AGASINO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 355
Pages: 1001–1003

Head Matter:
Maria Socorro AGASINO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-71468.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 8, 2009.
Filed Dec. 10, 2009.
Philippe Dwelshauvers, Esquire, Fresno, CA, Nancy Ellen Miller, Esquire, Law Offices of Reeves & Associates, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Alison Drucker, Esquire, Donald E. Keener, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Maria Socorro Agasino (Agasino) petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision denying her petition to reopen her case to seek relief pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c).
Agasino raised the argument that retroactive application of the expanded "aggravated felony" definition violates due process in her prior petition, so it is now barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion. See In re Reynoso, 477 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir.2007). Likewise, Agasino could have raised her claim that application of the expanded definition violates her right to equal protection, so that claim is barried by the doctrine of claim preclusion. See United States v. Bhatia, 545 F.3d 757, 759 (9th Cir.2008). Because Agasino is not entitled to relief, the BIA acted within its discretion when it denied Agasino's motion to reopen proceedings. See Bunty Ngaeth v. Mukasey, 545 F.3d 796, 799-800 (9th Cir.2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.