
    Maria DEL CAMPO-PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74856.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 19, 2010.
    
    Filed July 30, 2010.
    Marc Karlin, Karlin & Karlin, APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Daniel I. Smulow, Trial, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria Del Campo-Pineda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Aguilar Gonzalez v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency properly determined that Del Campo-Pineda acquired her legal permanent resident status through fraud or misrepresentation and was therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal. See Monet v. INS, 791 F.2d 752, 753 (9th Cir.1986); In re Koloamatangi, 23 I. & N. Dec. 548, 551 (BIA 2003). Del Campo-Pineda fails to provide any authority that supports her contention that the agency lacked jurisdiction to find that she acquired her legal permanent resident status through fraud or misrepresentation where the district director had not served her with a notice of intent to rescind. Del Campo-Pineda’s due process claim therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

Del Campo-Pineda’s contention that the agency erred by failing to weigh all the equities is unpersuasive.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     