Case Name: Rosalba AQUINO-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-19
Citations: 538 F. App'x 795
Docket Number: No. 12-71190
Parties: Rosalba AQUINO-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 538
Pages: 795–795

Head Matter:
Rosalba AQUINO-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-71190.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 14, 2013.
Filed Aug. 19, 2013.
Rosalba Aquino-Gareia, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
OIL, Nancy Ellen Friedman, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, 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
Rosalba Aquino-Gareia, 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. We review de novo claims of due process violations. Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's determination that the evidence Aquino-Gareia submitted with her motion to reopen was insufficient to warrant reopening and she did not establish prima facie eligibility for relief, where the evidence presented concerns the same grounds involved in the original discretionary decision. See id. at 600-01.
Aquino-Garcia's due process claim fails because the record shows the BIA considered the hardship to her son and she cannot establish prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.