
    Laura MESA-VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71481.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2014.
    
    Submission Vacated Jan. 15, 2015.
    Resubmitted April 24, 2015.
    Filed April 28, 2015.
    John Martin Pope, Benjamin Wiesinger, Pope & Associates, PC,’ Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Tiffany L. Walters, Trial, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FISHER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Laura Mesa-Valdez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying her motion to reopen. We deny the petition.

1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Mesa-Valdez’s motion to reopen. Mesa-Valdez did not establish a reasonable likelihood that, her children would face exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if she were removed to Mexico. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l); Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.Bd 1168, 1171 (9th Cir.2006). Her evidence did not establish the extent of her current medical condition, what medical care she requires or why her relatives in Mexico could not provide-required care. See Patel v. INS, 741 F.2d 1134, 1137 (9th Cir.1984).

2. The BIA did not violate the Due Process Clause by denying Mesa-Valdez’s motion to reopen. Mesa-Valdez did not show a reasonable likelihood that she would prevail on her application for cancellation of removal. Because the BIA did not err in denying her motion, it did not violate her due process rights. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1013-14 (9th Cir.2010); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000).

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