Case ID: f-appx_671/html/0605-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Socheath CHAING, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-72137
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 19, 2016
    Socheath Chaing, Pro Se
    Brendan Paul Hogan, Esquire, Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Socheath Chaing, a native and citizen of Cambodia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law. Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err or abuse its discretion in denying Chaing’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, where Chaing’s former representative’s decision to withdraw her applications for relief and pursue voluntary departure was a tactical one, and where Chaing has not demonstrated she is plausibly eligible for adjustment of status. See Martinez-Hernandez v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2015) (“A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a showing of inadequate performance and prejudice.... [A prejudice] showing cannot be made unless a petitioner demonstrates, at a minimum, that the asserted ground for relief is at least plausible.” (citations omitted)).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Chaing’s contentions regarding compliance with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and regarding not having been advised of the consequences of filing a frivolous asylum claim. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).

Chaing’s request for referral to the Mediation Unit is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.