
    Jose Danilo ROJEL-GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 13-73231, 14-71489.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 7, 2015.
    
    Filed April 16, 2015.
    Zulu Ali, Zulu Abdullah Ali, Riverside, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Jane Tracey Schaffner, 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: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 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.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. 14-71489.

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