UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1846

ARTURO ROMAN-ORIHUELA,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: January 24, 2013 Decided: June 10, 2013

Before GREGORY and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jaime W. Aparisi, Silver Springs, Maryland, for Petitioner. 

Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Janice K. 

Redfern, Senior Litigation Counsel, Sarah Maloney, Office of 

Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Arturo Roman-Orihuela (“Roman”), a native and citizen 

of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals’ (“Board”) December 30, 2011 final order of removal and 

the June 18, 2012 order denying his motion to reopen. Roman 

claims he was denied due process at the immigration hearing due 

to poor interpretation and translation. He also claims that the 

Board abused its discretion denying his request to consolidate 

his case with his wife’s asylum application. We deny the 

petition for review.

The Board issued the final order of removal on 

December 30, 2011, erroneously indicating that Roman was to be 

removed to Guatemala instead of Peru. Roman filed a timely 

motion to reopen seeking to consolidate his case with his wife’s 

asylum case and to have the Board change the country of removal 

from Guatemala to Peru. On June 12, 2012, the Board denied 

consolidation. The Board recognized the error in the December 

30, 2011 order of removal and vacated the language stating that 

Roman should be removed to Guatemala and further ordered that 

Roman be removed to Peru. The Board reissued the June 12, 2012 

decision on June 18, 2012, because it was mailed to the wrong 

address for Roman’s counsel. 

Roman contends he was denied due process during the 

immigration hearing because he was not provided with a competent 
3

interpreter. The Board rejected the due process claim, finding 

that Roman failed to show he was prejudiced. To succeed on a 

due process claim in an asylum or deportation proceeding, Roman 

must establish two closely linked elements: (1) that a defect 

in the proceeding rendered it fundamentally unfair and (2) that 

the defect prejudiced the outcome of the case. Anim v. Mukasey, 

535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008). In order to establish 

prejudice, Roman must show that the defect likely impacted the 

results of the proceedings. Id. We have reviewed the record 

and agree with the Board that Roman’s claim fails because he did 

not show he was prejudiced by the allegedly poor interpreter.* 

After the Board issued the December 30, 2011 decision, 

Roman was married to a Peruvian who entered the United States in 

May 2011. His spouse was in removal proceedings and she had 

filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal. 

Roman requested that the Board consolidate his removal 

proceedings with his wife’s removal proceedings so that he might 

 * The Attorney General argues that this court does not have 

jurisdiction over the December 30, 2011 order because Roman did 

not file a timely petition for review from that order. We 

conclude that the Board’s subsequent June 12, 2012 order, 

reissued on June 18, 2012, which amended the December 30 order 

and further ordered that Roman be removed to Peru, effectively 

reissued the December 30 order. Thus, Roman’s July 10, 2012 

petition for review is timely as to the amended December 30 

order and we have jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) 

(2006). 
4

be eligible for relief as a derivative applicant. The Board 

denied his request for reopening, finding there was no adequate 

basis for consolidation. 

“A motion to reopen proceedings 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.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (2013). The denial 

of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion. 8 

C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th 

Cir. 2009); Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006). 

The Board has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the 

Petitioner has made out a prima facie case for relief. 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.2(a). The Board’s “denial of a motion to reopen is 

reviewed with extreme deference, given that motions to reopen 

are disfavored because every delay works to the advantage of the 

deportable alien who wishes merely to remain in the United 

States.” Sadhvani v. Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th Cir. 2009) 

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 

We conclude that the Board did not abuse its 

discretion denying reopening. In his motion to reopen, Roman 

did not show that he was an eligible spouse for derivative 

asylum purposes. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.21 (2013) (a spouse may 

also be granted asylum if the spouse accompanied or followed to 

join the principal alien); see also 8 C.F.R. § 207.7(a) (2013)
5

(defining a spouse who accompanies the principal alien and a 

spouse who follows to join the principal alien). We also note 

that Roman failed to show that his wife was prima facie eligible 

for the relief she sought or that their marriage was bona fide 

and not entered into for the purpose of gaining an immigration 

benefit.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED