UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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
2
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).
3
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)
4
(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
5