Case ID: f-appx_489/html/0235-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rogelio CONCHAS-FERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72189.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Jan. 3, 2013.
    Leticia Torres Moreno, Law Offices of Leticia T. Moreno, APC, Commerce, CA, for Petitioner.
    Rogelio Conchas-Fernandez, El Monte, CA, pro se.
    OIL, 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: GOODWIN, WALLACE, 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

Rogelio Conchas-Fernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. 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. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Conchas-Fernandez’s motion to reopen where petitioner failed to establish prejudice arising from the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1189 (9th Cir.2004) (presumption of prejudice resulting from counsel’s failure to file a brief may be rebutted where petitioner is unable to “show plausible grounds for relief’).

In light of our disposition, we need not address Conchas-Fernandez’s claim regarding equitable tolling.

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