FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS AVILA AVILA, No. 08-70221
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-854-047
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Avila Avila, 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 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
/Research
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo
questions of law, including claims of due process violations due to ineffective
assistance of counsel. 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 by denying Avila’s motion to reopen,
because the BIA considered the evidence he submitted and acted within its broad
discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening.
See 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.”).
We agree with the BIA’s conclusion that Avila failed to establish that his
former representative’s conduct resulted in prejudice, and therefore his ineffective
assistance of counsel claim fails. See Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793 (to prevail on
an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate
prejudice).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
/Research 2 08-70221