Blusguin Alvarenga-Melgar v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUN 01 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    BLUSGUIN OTONIEL ALVARENGA-                      No. 09-73687
    MELGAR,
    Agency No. A088-423-377
    Petitioner,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted May 24, 2011 **
    Before:        PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    Blusguin Otoniel Alvarenga-Melgar, a native and citizen of Honduras,
    petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
    dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to
    reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We
    *
    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).
    review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and de novo
    constitutional claims. Lin v. Ashcroft, 
    377 F.3d 1014
    , 1023 (9th Cir. 2004). We
    deny the petition for review.
    The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen on
    the ground that Alvarenga-Melgar failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for
    asylum where he failed to identify a source of persecution or demonstrate a well-
    founded fear. See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 
    444 F.3d 1168
    , 1171 (9th Cir.
    2006) (the BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie
    case for the underlying relief sought); see also Khourassany v. INS, 
    208 F.3d 1096
    ,
    1101 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding similarly situated, unharmed family members
    undermine future fear when an alien claims fear based on family group). It follows
    that Alvarenga-Melgar has not established a violation of due process. See Lata v.
    INS, 
    204 F.3d 1241
    , 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a due
    process violation).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                    09-73687