Citation Codes Equivalent Citations citation codes Docket Number No. 05-73554. Attorney(S) Kaaren L. Barr, Esquire, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner. Andrea Gevas, OIL, DOJ, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Esquire, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent. Judges Michael Daly Hawkins Johnnie B. Rawlinson Acts Aliens And Nationality — Immigration And Nationality — Immigration — Adjustment And Change Of Status — Judicial Review Of Orders Of Removal Aliens And Nationality — Immigration And Nationality — Immigration — Inspection, Apprehension, Examination, Exclusion, And Removal — Removal Proceedings See more information ... Smart Summary Please sign up to generate summary. Jenny E. TOOY, aka Deesie Dengah, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. MEMORANDUM This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Jenny E. Tooy, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 2003), and we review due process claims de novo, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Tooy's motion to reopen because it was untimely and Tooy failed to present evidence of material changed circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) ("The critical question is . . . whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution."). Tooy also contends the BIA violated due process because it did not allow her to present evidence of changed circumstances in an evidentiary hearing. Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen, her due process contention fails. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) (stating that motion to reopen shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted, and shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding petitioner must demonstrate error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.