JOSE ROJEL-GOMEZ V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 13-73231 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 16 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE DANILO ROJEL-GOMEZ, Nos. 13-73231 Nos. 14-71489 Petitioner, Agency No. A098-006-777 v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 7, 2015** Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated petitions for review, Jose Danilo Rojel-Gomez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order acknowledging withdrawal of Rojel-Gomez’s applications for asylum, withholding * 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). of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and granting his application for voluntary departure (No. 13-73231), and the BIA’s subsequent order denying his motion to reopen (No. 14-71489). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations. Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2005). The BIA did not deny Rojel-Gomez’s due process in dismissing his appeal. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2000) (no due process violation where there is no error); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(C) (BIA may summarily dismiss where “appeal is from an order that granted the party concerned the relief that had been requested”). Thus, we deny the petition for review in No. 13-73231. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rojel-Gomez’s motion to reopen where Rojel-Gomez did not establish the evidence he submitted was new. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Bolshakov v. INS, 133 F.3d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 2 13-73231/14-71489 1998) (upholding agency’s denial of a motion to reopen where petitioner failed to establish evidence was “new”). Thus, we deny the petition for review in No. 1471489. PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 13-73231/14-71489

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.