Case Name: Osbaldo CRUZ DOMINGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-15
Citations: 145 F. App'x 570
Docket Number: No. 03-72615; Agency No. A74-812-294
Parties: Osbaldo CRUZ DOMINGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KOZINSKI and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 145
Pages: 570–570

Head Matter:
Osbaldo CRUZ DOMINGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-72615.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 5, 2005.
Decided Aug. 15, 2005.
Curtis Pierce, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Donald A. Couvillon, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before KOZINSKI and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, District Judge.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it declined to reopen the proceedings, because Osbaldo Cruz Dominguez did not support the motion to reopen with previously unavailable evidence. See Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 784-85 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that the movant must support the motion to reopen with new evidence).
2. Cruz Dominguez cannot prevail on his due process claim because he was provided a full and fair hearing in which to demonstrate extreme hardship, and failed to show error or substantial prejudice. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2000).
PETITION DENIED.
ThiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.