Case Name: Blanca Beatriz TUCUX, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-06
Citations: 408 F. App'x 22
Docket Number: No. 07-73031
Parties: Blanca Beatriz TUCUX, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 408
Pages: 22–23

Head Matter:
Blanca Beatriz TUCUX, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73031.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
Filed Jan. 6, 2011.
Juan A. Lugana, Esquire, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, 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
Blanca Beatriz Tucux, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to terminate proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not err or violate due process in denying Tucux's motion to terminate where she failed to demonstrate that she filed a timely motion to reopen or an application for suspension of deportation required for relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.43(e)(1), (2); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.