Case ID: f-appx_357/html/0914-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Elias Shume SIRAG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75341.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
    Steven R. Landaal, Esq., Law Offices of Steven R. Landaal, Santa Monica, 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, Carol Federighi, Esq., Kathryn Moore, 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

Elias Shume Sirag, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his 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 ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

We agree with the BIA that Sirag failed to establish any prejudice that was caused by his former counsel’s performance. See id. at 899-903 (showing of prejudice required to prevail on ineffective assistance of counsel claim).

We reject Sirag’s contention that the BIA failed to address every factual claim he raised in his motion. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603-04 (9th Cir.2006).

Sirag’s remaining contention is unavailing.

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