
    Lucia Lopez de RUIZ, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-60783.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 21, 2008.
    Simon M. Azar-Farr, Simon Azar-Farr & Associates, San Antonio, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Luis Enrique Perez, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Kenneth L. Pasquarell, Acting, District Director U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, San Antonio, TX, for Respondent.
    Michael B. Mukasey, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
    
      Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Lucia Lopez de Ruiz (Ruiz) seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rejecting her claim for relief under former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The BIA concluded that Ruiz’s prior conviction for fraud did not have a statutory counterpart in § 212(a), relying on 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(f)(5), and In re Blake, 23 I. & N. Dec. 722 (BIA 2005), petition for review granted & remanded, Blake v. Carbone, 489 F.3d 88, 91 (2d Cir.2007). Ruiz argues that ' Blake and its interpretation of § 1212.3(f)(5) is incompatible with INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001); violates the constitutional doctrines of equal protection, due process, and separation of powers; is inconsistent with statutory language and Supreme Court precedent; and is inconsistent with the BIA’s prior practice. She further challenges the determination that fraud is not a crime involving moral turpitude for purposes of § 212(c) relief.

In light of our decisions in Vo v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 363 (5th Cir.2007), and Avilez-Granados v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 869, 871-72 (5th Cir.2007), we reject Ruiz’s claims. The petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     