Case ID: f-appx_423/html/0730-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hector Vargas CORONA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71659.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 23, 2011.
    Bernadette Willeke Connolly, Law Offices of Bernadette W. Connolly, San Jose, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Anthony Paul Nicastro, Esquire, Trial, Yanal H. Yousef, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hector Vargas-Corona, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 de novo claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, for substantial evidence findings of fact regarding counsel’s performance, and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1023-24 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vargas Corona’s motion on the ground that Vargas Corona did not establish ineffective assistance by his former attorneys where the record does not compel the conclusion that Vargas Corona’s former attorneys were aware his mother would pass away during the course of his removal proceedings. See Lin, 377 F.3d at 1023 (petitioner must establish that counsel’s performance prevented him from reasonably presenting his case).

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