FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PRINCESITA TALUCOD PAHUTAN, No. 06-75633
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-172-463
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted May 13, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and WATSON, District Judge.**
Princesita Talucod Pahutan (“Pahutan”), a native and citizen of the
Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying
her motion to reopen on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Michael H. Watson, District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for Southern Ohio, Columbus, sitting by designation.
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we
deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Pahutan’s motion to reopen
on the ground that she failed to show she was prejudiced by her former counsel’s
conduct. See Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 899–90 (holding that prejudice results when
the performance of counsel “was so inadequate that it may have affected the
outcome of the proceedings”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Even assuming that Pahutan could demonstrate that her prior counsel was
ineffective, the evidence presented in support of her motion to reopen was
insufficient to establish a prima facie case for cancellation of removal. Although
the evidence showed that Pahutan’s mother is elderly and frail, the evidence also
showed that she is cared for by Pahutan’s brother, and, as acknowledged by
Pahutan’s counsel at argument, Pahutan’s mother continues to live with her
brother. We thus conclude that the evidence Pahutan submitted is insufficient to
establish that her legal permanent resident mother would suffer “exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship” should Pahutan be removed. See 8 U.S.C. §
1229b(b)(1)(D).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
2