FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 25 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA ANTONIA RODRIGUEZ- No. 08-73867

PAREDES,

Agency No. A027-199-904 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM *

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 15, 2012 **

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Maria Antonia Rodriguez-Paredes, a native and citizen of El Saldavor,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying

her motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen

and review de novo due process claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785,

791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Paredes’ motion

to reopen as untimely because she filed the motion more than eighteen years after

the BIA’s final order of deportation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Rodriguez-

Paredes’ contention that reopening is warranted because she lacked adequate notice

under Flores-Chavez v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2004), is misplaced

because she appeared for her scheduled hearing. It follows that Rogriguez-Paredes

has not established a due process violation. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246

(9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must show error and prejudice to prevail on a due

process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 08-73867