Case ID: f-appx_501/html/0680-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Catalino QUINTEROS RAMOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72907.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Dec. 21, 2012.
    Mike Singh Sethi, Esquire, Orange, CA, for Petitioner.
    Palin Riley Holyoak, Esquire, Trial, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, 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

Jose Catalino Quinteros Ramos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Quinteros Ramos’s motion to reopen where Quinteros Ramos has not established prejudice from his prior counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance. See id. at 793-94 (prejudice results when “the performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings”).

We lack jurisdiction over Quinteros Ramos’s contention that the immigration judge failed to advise Quinteros Ramos properly about the fingerprinting requirement because this is not a timely challenge to the agency’s prior order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

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