Demetrio Felix Zarate v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEMETRIO FELIX ZARATE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73783
Agency No. A073-717-843
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Demetrio Felix Zarate, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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
FILED
MAY 27 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

process violations in immigration proceedings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d
785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zarate’s motion to reopen
because he failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency may deny a motion to reopen
based on a failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought);
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act
“requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum
applicant’s persecution”). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
We reject Zarate’s contentions that the BIA violated his right to due process
because the BIA considered his evidence and arguments. See Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-73783 2

-- 2 of 2 --