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>). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. ** This
holding that an alien must establish that he was prejudiced by the alleged error in order to prevail on a due process claim holding that a petitioner must show prejudice in order to prevail on a claim that he or she was denied a full and fair hearing in violation of due process holding that an alien must show error and substantial prejudice in order to prevail on a due process claim holding petitioner must demonstrate error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim holding that to prevail on a claim that an immigration hearing was procedurally insufficient the petitioner must demonstrate prejudice