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:T499,MEMORANDUM Grasiela Ledezma-Galvan, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo constitutional questions and questions of law, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA properly concluded that Ledez-ma-Galvan was ineligible for pre-hearing voluntary departure because she failed to withdraw her application for cancellation of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26 (b)(l)(i)(B). Contrary to Ledez-ma-Galvan’s assertion, an alien’s eligibility for voluntary departure is a question of law which the BIA is permitted by regulation to review de novo. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1 (d)(3)(ii). It follows that Ledez-ma-Galvan’s due process claim fails. See 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4c6,

MEMORANDUM

Grasiela Ledezma-Galvan, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo constitutional questions and questions of law, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA properly concluded that Ledez-ma-Galvan was ineligible for pre-hearing voluntary departure because she failed to withdraw her application for cancellation of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26 (b)(l)(i)(B). Contrary to Ledez-ma-Galvan’s assertion, an alien’s eligibility for voluntary departure is a question of law which the BIA is permitted by regulation to review de novo. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1 (d)(3)(ii). It follows that Ledez-ma-Galvan’s due process claim fails. See 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.