FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 06 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE MORENO-SANDOVAL, No. 09-73868
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-808-572
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Moreno-Sandoval, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
*
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).
reopen, and review de novo 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Moreno-Sandoval’s motion
to reopen on the ground that he did not establish prejudice from his former
counsel’s failure to challenge his removability. See id. at 793-94 (prejudice results
when counsel’s performance “was so inadequate that it may have affected the
outcome of the proceedings”) (citation omitted). We agree with the BIA that
counsel’s actions did not prejudice Moreno-Sandoval because he was correctly
found removable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1101(a)(43)(T), 1227(a)(2)(iii).
We lack jurisdiction to review Moreno-Sandoval’s claim that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel in his prior proceedings before this court. See
Singh v. Napolitano, No. 07-16988, 2011 WL 1485263, at *1-3 (9th Cir. Apr. 18,
2011) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 09-73868