Gankhuyag Purevdoo v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 586 F. App'x 280 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 01 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GANKHUYAG PUREVDOO, No. 10-71140; 11-70885
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-196-714
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted November 17, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: NOONAN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and DANIEL, Senior District
Judge.**
Gankhuyag Purevdoo (Purevdoo) petitions for review of two orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The first dismisses Purevdoo’s appeal from
an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Wiley Y. Daniel, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation.
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The second
denies Purevdoo’s motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1252. We deny both petitions.
We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s determination that a petitioner
is ineligible for asylum. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir.
2010). An adverse credibility finding is also reviewed for substantial evidence.
See Singh v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2004). We conclude that
substantial evidence supports the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s adverse credibility
finding. Purevdoo did not offer credible evidence in support of his asylum
application.
We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s ruling on a motion to reopen.
See Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir. 2002). We conclude
that the BIA did not abuse its discretion. Purevdoo did not show that the correctly
translated medical document would have changed the result of his case. Purevdoo
therefore did not show prejudice from any deficiency by his former attorney, and
his due process rights were not violated.
PETITION DENIED.
-2-