Case ID: f-appx_292/html/0555-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sail Alberto JOYA-QUINTANILLA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-77238.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.
    
    Filed Sept. 5, 2008.
    Shan D. Potts, Esq., Robert G. Berke, Esq., Berke Law Offices, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    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, Michael P. Lindemann, Esq., Lyle D. Jent-zer, Esq., William C. Peachey, Ethan B. Kanter, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sail Alberto Joya-Quintanilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider its previous decision and to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider or reopen and review de novo due process claims. Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider as untimely because Joya-Quintanilla filed the motion more than 30 days after the BIA’s final order of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (motion to reconsider must be filed within 30 days after the mailing of the BIA’s decision).

The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because Joya-Quintanilla did not establish the prejudice required to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003) (petitioner must show plausible grounds for relief to establish prejudice).

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