
    Demetrio Felix ZARATE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-73783.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 27, 2014.
    Inna Lipkin, Esquire, Counsel, Law Offices of Inna Lipkin, Redwood City, CA, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Regina Byrd, Esquire, Linda Y. Cheng, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     