Case Name: Martha LIMA-CORTEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-28
Citations: 361 F. App'x 718
Docket Number: No. 07-71771
Parties: Martha LIMA-CORTEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 361
Pages: 718–719

Head Matter:
Martha LIMA-CORTEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71771.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Dec. 28, 2009.
Elsa Ines Martinez, Esquire, Law Offices of Elsa Martinez, PLC, Mario Acosta, Jr., Esquire, Martinez Goldsby & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Stephen Elliott, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Emily Anne Radford, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Martha Lima-Cortez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 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. 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 review de novo questions of law, Dela Cruz v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 946, 948 (9th Cir.2008) (per cu-riam). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Lima-Cortez's motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than 10 months after the BIA's December 15, 2005, order dismissing the underlying appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2; see also Dela Cruz, 532 F.3d at 949 ("[T]he pendency of a petition for review of an order of removal does not toll the statutory time limit for the filing of a motion to reopen with the BIA."). Accordingly, Lima-Cortez's due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
To the extent Lima-Cortez challenges the BIA's decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings, we lack jurisdiction. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).
Lima-Cortez's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
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.