Case ID: f-appx_358/html/0904-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MEMORANDUM \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Leonel Humberto MENDEZ AGUILUZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-73874.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    
      Filed Dec. 9, 2009.
    Leonel Humberto Mendez Aguiluz, Pico Rivera, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Margaret K. Taylor, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, 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

Leonel Humberto Mendez Aguiluz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reconsider the BIA’s prior order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact relating to counsel’s performance, Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1023 (9th Cir.2004), and for abuse of discretion motions to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Mendez Aguiluz did not establish prejudice resulting from his prior counsel’s allegedly ineffective assistance. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899-90 (9th Cir.2003) (a showing of prejudice can be made if counsel’s performance “was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion because the record supports the BIA’s conclusion that Mendez Aguiluz did not exercise due diligence in pursuing his claims for relief. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (unless BIA acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law in denying a motion to reopen, the Court of Appeals should not disturb the BIA’s ruling).

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