FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZHONGGUI CAO, No. 13-71494
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-402-038
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Zhonggui Cao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
*
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).
a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we
review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations due to
ineffective assistance, 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 Cao’s motion to reopen for
failure to establish prejudice from his former attorney. See Iturribarria, 321 F.3d
at 903 (BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that petitioner did not
qualify for relief in question); see also Jiang v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1086, 1093-94
(9th Cir. 2010) (spouse of victim of forced abortion not per se eligible for refugee
status); He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 795-96 (9th Cir. 2014) (record did not compel
finding petitioner engaged in resistance to China’s one-child policy or suffered
persecution). We reject Cao’s contention that the BIA required him to publicly
oppose China’s birth control policy to establish his resistance to it.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-71494