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:T51f,MEMORANDUM Angelita Dagsil Agripa, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reconsider and reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider, and review de novo claims of due process violations. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Agripa’s motion as untimely because the motion was filed almost 10 months after the BIA’s December 21, 2004, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (b)(2), (c)(2), and Agripa failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling, see Iturnbarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (equitable tolling available where “petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”). It follows that Agripa has not established a due process violation. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error to succeed 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:T54c,

MEMORANDUM

Angelita Dagsil Agripa, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reconsider and reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider, and review de novo claims of due process violations. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Agripa’s motion as untimely because the motion was filed almost 10 months after the BIA’s December 21, 2004, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (b)(2), (c)(2), and Agripa failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling, see Iturnbarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (equitable tolling available where “petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”). It follows that Agripa has not established a due process violation. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error to succeed 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.