FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 16 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE DANILO ROJEL-GOMEZ, Nos. 13-73231
Nos. 14-71489
Petitioner,
Agency No. A098-006-777
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2015**
Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Jose Danilo Rojel-Gomez, a
native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order
acknowledging withdrawal of Rojel-Gomez’s applications for asylum, withholding
*
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).
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and granting his
application for voluntary departure (No. 13-73231), and the BIA’s subsequent
order denying his motion to reopen (No. 14-71489). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations. Colmenar
v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to reopen. Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.
2005).
The BIA did not deny Rojel-Gomez’s due process in dismissing his appeal.
See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2000) (no due process
violation where there is no error); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(C) (BIA may
summarily dismiss where “appeal is from an order that granted the party concerned
the relief that had been requested”). Thus, we deny the petition for review in No.
13-73231.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rojel-Gomez’s motion to
reopen where Rojel-Gomez did not establish the evidence he submitted was new.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Bolshakov v. INS, 133 F.3d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir.
2 13-73231/14-71489
1998) (upholding agency’s denial of a motion to reopen where petitioner failed to
establish evidence was “new”). Thus, we deny the petition for review in No. 14-
71489.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-73231/14-71489