Arturo Rodriguez-Marquina v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTURO RODRIGUEZ-MARQUINA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70916
Agency No. A095-771-962
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
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
FILED
OCT 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-70916 2
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.

-- 2 of 2 --