Case ID: f-appx_485/html/0866-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Arturo RODRIGUEZ-MARQUINA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-70916.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 15, 2012.
    T. Anthony Guajardo, Law Office of T. Anthony Guajardo, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Don George Scroggin, Esquire, 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: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Arturo Rodriguez-Marquina, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen. 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 claims of due process violations. Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen where Rodriguez-Marquina failed to show prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. See Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir.2003) (a motion to reopen will not be granted unless the respondent establishes a case of prima facie eligibility for the underlying relief sought). Rodriguez-Marquina’s due process claim therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring a showing of error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

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