United States Court of Appeals
                 For the Eighth Circuit
             ___________________________

                     No. 18-1642
             ___________________________

Celina Aracely Nieto-Lopez; Oscar Armando Barahona-Nieto

                 lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners

                               v.

   William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States

                lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
             ___________________________

                     No. 18-3163
             ___________________________

                Celina Aracely Nieto-Lopez

                 lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

                               v.

   William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States

                lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
                         ____________

           Petition for Review of an Order of the
               Board of Immigration Appeals
                        ____________
                            Submitted: October 4, 2019
                             Filed: October 15, 2019
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before GRUENDER, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      In these consolidated matters, Salvadoran citizens Celina Nieto-Lopez (Nieto)
and her son, Oscar Armando Barahona-Nieto (collectively, Petitioners) petition for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which dismissed their
appeal from the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying them asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT)
(Appeal No. 18-1642). Nieto also individually petitions for review of a BIA order
denying Petitioners’ motion to reopen proceedings (Appeal No. 18-3163).

       Upon careful consideration, we find no basis for reversal. We conclude that
Petitioners’ due process claim lacks merit, see Alva-Arellano v. Lynch, 

, 1066 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review; to establish due process violation,
alien must show a fundamental procedural error and prejudice); and that there was no
abuse of discretion in the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen, see Vargas v. Holder,

, 391 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review).

      The petitions for review are denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                       ______________________________




                                         -2-