NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCO ANTONIO SANCHEZ LEYVA,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No s
. 18

- 70913 19

- 71230 Agency No. A090

- 219

- 765

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of Order s of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 2 , 2020 * *
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Marco Antonio Sanchez Leyva , a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“ BIA ”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration jud ge’s (“IJ”) d ecision denying his application for
cancellation of removal (petition No. 18

- 70193) and the BIA ’ s order denying his

mo tion s to reconsider and reopen (petition No. 19

- 71230)

. Our jurisdiction is

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 9 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 70913 & 19

- 71230

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales , 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). W e review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder , 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014)

. In petit ion No

. 18

- 70913, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

In petition No. 19

- 71230, w e deny the petition for review. As to petition No. 18

- 70913, w e lack jurisdiction to rev iew the IJ ’s discretionary denial of cancellation of removal

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) (i)

. Sanchez Leyva’s contention that the IJ violated his righ t to due process fails

. See
Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim)

. Thus, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review. As to petition N o. 19

- 71230, t he BIA did not abuse its discretion i n denying Sanchez Leyva’s motion to reconsider and terminate , where his contention s that
the IJ lacked jurisdiction over his proceedings are foreclosed by Karingithi v.
Whitaker , 913 F.3d 1158, 1159 (9 th Cir. 2019) , and Aguilar Fermin v. Barr , 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sanchez Leyva’s motion to

reopen proceedings to reassess his eligibility for cancellation of removal , where Sanchez Leyva did not establish that he would be entitled to a grant of relief

. See3 18

- 70913 & 19

- 71230

Najmabadi v. Ho lder , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen for “failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought, failure to introduce previously unavailable, material evidence, and a determination that even if these requirem ents were satisfied, the movant would not be entitled to the discretionary grant of relief which he sought.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) )

. Further, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sanchez Leyva’s motion to reopen to app ly for asylum and related relief , where Sanchez Leyva did not introduce previously unavailable, material evidence

. See id. Sanchez Leyva’s contention that the BIA ’s denial of his motions violated his right to due process fails. See Lata , 204 F.3d at 1246

. Thus, we deny the petition for review. As stated in the court’s May 20, 2019 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
No. 18

- 70913: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part
. No. 1 9

- 71230: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.