Case ID: f-appx_387/html/0698-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Zhenjin NAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 07-72308, 07-73966.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 13, 2010.
    Judith L. Wood, Esquire, Law Offices of Judith L. Wood & Jesse A. Moorman, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Michael Christopher Heyse, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated petitions for review, Zhenjin Nan, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying her successive motions 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 de novo questions of law, including those concerning ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny both petitions for review.

We agree with the BIA’s conclusions that Nan failed to show she had been prejudiced by former counsels’ representation. See id. at 794 (9th Cir. 2005) (in order to state a valid claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, petitioner must show prejudice).

Nan’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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