FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 29 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ISRAEL ABDIAS ROMERO- Nos. 09-71311
BONILLA, 09-74030
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-763-919
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Jose Israel Abdias Romero-
Bonilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for Temporary Protected Status
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(“TPS”), and denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of
counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s adverse credibility findings. Saval v. Holder, 623 F.3d 666,
670 (9th Cir. 2010). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations. Iturribarria v. INS,
321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petitions for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
based on Romero-Bonilla’s failure to explain adequately the discrepancy between
his mother’s TPS application and his testimony as to the date he entered the United
States. See Kasnecovic v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 2005). It follows
that Romero-Bonilla’s due process challenge to the IJ’s decision fails. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process claim).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Romero-Bonilla’s motion to
reopen on the ground that he failed to establish prejudice from his former counsel’s
representation. See Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 899-900 (prejudice results when
counsel’s performance may have affected the outcome of the proceedings).
In light of our disposition, we do not address Romero-Bonilla’s remaining
contentions.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-71311, 09-74030