FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODRIGO AGUILAR-VERGARA, No. 08-71856
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-535-342
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Rodrigo Aguilar-Vergara, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Malty v. Ashcroft,
*
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).
381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004), and we review de novo ineffective assistance of
counsel claims, 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 Aguilar-Vergara’s motion to
reopen because Aguilar-Vergara failed to show he was prejudiced by his former
counsel’s withdrawal of his asylum application. See Maravilla Maravilla v.
Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 855, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2004) (to reopen because of ineffective
assistance of counsel, petitioners must show that counsel’s performance was so
inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings); see also
Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (the BIA’s denial of a motion to
reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).
Aguilar-Vergara’s contentions that the BIA erred by applying an incorrect
legal standard and by making an improper adverse credibility determination are
belied by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-71856