Case ID: f-appx_540/html/0756-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ines Adalid Fonseca LOGOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70736.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 2, 2013.
    Edgardo Quintanilla, Quintanilla Law Firm, Inc., Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Claire Workman, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ines Adalid Fonseca Logos, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings to pursue cancellation of removal. 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 Fonseca Logos’s motion to reopen to pursue cancellation of removal where he failed to establish prejudice arising from the alleged ineffective assistance by his former counsel. See id. at 793-94.

Fonseca Logos’s contention that the BIA applied the wrong standard fails. See Ray v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 582, 587 (9th Cir.2006).

We also reject Fonseca Logo’s arguments that the BIA failed to adequately consider, weigh, and address the evidence he submitted. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.2010).

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