From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez-Marquina v. Holder

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Oct 15, 2012
485 F. App'x 866 (9th Cir. 2012)

Opinion

No. 11-70916 Agency No. A095-771-962

10-15-2012

ARTURO RODRIGUEZ-MARQUINA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

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


On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

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.


Summaries of

Rodriguez-Marquina v. Holder

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Oct 15, 2012
485 F. App'x 866 (9th Cir. 2012)
Case details for

Rodriguez-Marquina v. Holder

Case Details

Full title:ARTURO RODRIGUEZ-MARQUINA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Oct 15, 2012

Citations

485 F. App'x 866 (9th Cir. 2012)