
    Gankhuyag PUREVDOO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 10-71140, 11-70885.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Nov. 17, 2014.
    Filed Dec. 1, 2014.
    Tsz-Hai Huang, The Huang Law Firm, Walnut Creek, CA, Bruce Cholei Wong, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Liza Murcia, OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Gankhuyag Purevdoo, San Francisco, CA, pro se.
    Before: NOONAN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and DANIEL, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Wiley Y. Daniel, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The second denies Purev-doo’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. Purev-doo 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     