Case ID: f-appx_323/html/0502-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Inez MEDINA-HERNANDEZ, a.k.a. Jose Inez Medina, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75256.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 18, 2009.
    
    Filed April 3, 2009.
    Frank P. Sprouls, Esq., Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Lindsay L. Chichester, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Inez Medina-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1023 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA correctly rejected Medina-Hernandez’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim because any deficiencies in the representation did not prejudice him. See Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518, 527 n. 12 (9th Cir.2000) (“Due process challenges to deportation proceedings require a showing of prejudice to succeed.”). We conclude that there was no error in the BIA’s determination that its prior decision properly considered Medina-Hernandez’s perjury conviction in denying his application for relief under former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.