Case Name: Maria CERDA-BECERRA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-25
Citations: 444 F. App'x 992
Docket Number: No. 07-71953
Parties: Maria CERDA-BECERRA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 444
Pages: 992–992

Head Matter:
Maria CERDA-BECERRA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71953.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 25, 2011.
Maria Cerda-Becerra, El Monte, CA, pro se.
Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office Of The Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, 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
Maria Cerda-Becerra, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision pretermitting her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and claims of due process violations, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.
The IJ properly determined that Cerda-Becerra abandoned her application for cancellation of removal because it was not filed by the IJ's deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c) (IJ may set filing deadlines and deem waived an application not filed by the deadline); see also Matter of R-R-, 20 I. & N. Dec. 547, 549 (BIA 1992) ("The Board has long held that applications for benefits under the Act are properly denied as abandoned when the alien fails to timely file them."). It follows that Cerda-Becer-ra's due process rights were not violated. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error 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.