
    Maria Mayra Molina MELCHOR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72963.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 15, 2011.
    Maria Mayra Molina Melchor, Canyon Country, CA, pro se.
    John Wolfgang Gehart, Lourdes Barrera Haley, Esquire, Carlos Vellanoweth, Esquire, Vellanoweth & Gehart, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jesse Lloyd Busen, Patrick James Glen, Esquire, Emily Anne Radford, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Offiee of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, 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 Mayra Molina-Melchor, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. 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 Molina Melchor’s motion to reopen because her failure to file the motion before the expiration of her voluntary departure period rendered her statutorily ineligible for the relief she sought. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d); De Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 763-64 (9th Cir.2004); see also Granados-Oseguera v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1011, 1015-16 (9th Cir.2008). It follows that the BIA did not violate due process by not examining her new evidence of hardship. 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).

Molina Melchor’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

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.
     