Case ID: f-appx_96/html/0503-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Filiberto Virrueta VIRRUETA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-70856.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 12, 2004.
    
    Decided April 27, 2004.
    Frank P. Sprouls, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization, Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Andrew C. MacLachlan, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Filiberto Virrueta Virrueta, 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 under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s ruling on the motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Carancho v. INS, 68 F.3d 356, 360 (9th Cir.1995), and we deny the petition.

Petitioner moved to reopen removal proceedings on grounds that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to timely file a petition for review of the BIA’s decision in this court. The BIA denied petitioner’s motion, concluding that counsel’s conduct did not provide a valid basis for reopening proceedings.

We deny the petition for review because the BIA’s decision was not “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” See id.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.