22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T41c,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, Itur ribarria 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. 36-3.24:T449,

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, Itur ribarria 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.