NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FELIX HUMBERTO SARAVIA,

Petitioner,

v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 72218

Agency No. A070

- 955

- 456

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 26, 2017 **

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N. R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Felix Humberto Saravia , a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

review of t he Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to

reopen . Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo

questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales , 400 F.3d 785, 791

- 92 (9th Cir. 2005).

* This disposition is not appropriate for publi cation and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 2 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 72218

We deny the petition for review.

Our jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to reopen

proceedings sua sponte is limited to “ reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions

for legal or constitutional error

. ” See Bonilla v. Lynch , 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir.

2016).

The BIA did not err in determining this court’s decision in Ceron v. Holder
, 747 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) does not constitute a material change in

law

. Id. (remanding to the BIA to consider whether conviction under California

Penal Code § 245(a)(1) is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude).

Contrary to Saravia’s contentions, the BIA did not err in its interpretation of

Ledezma

- Galicia v. Holder , 63 6 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2010), and determination that
it was proper to apply the aggravated felony definition to Saravia’s June 1986
conviction for purposes of whether he was statutorily eligible for relief. See id. at

1065 (recognizing that the classification of a crime as an aggravated felony is a

separate issue from removability for that crime and leaving intact settled circuit
law that a conviction prior to November 1988 may be considered an “aggravated
felony” under current immigration law); see als o Becker v. Gonzales
, 473 F.3d

1000, 1002

- 03 (9th Cir. 2007)

. Saravia contends he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel
, based upon prior counsel’s alleged failure to raise an argument under Ledezma

-3 14

- 72218

Galicia , 636 F.3d 1059, before the agency, and failure to timely file a petition for
review of the BIA’s order dismissing his appeal so that it would have been pending

when Ceron , 747 F.3d 773
, was decided

. T h e BIA did not err in determining that

Saravia failed to establish prejudice from this alleged ineffective assistance. See

Rojas

- Garcia v. Ashcroft , 339 F.3d 814, 82 6

- 2 7 (9th Cir. 2003) ( requiring

prejudice to state a valid claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and explaining

the presumption of prejudice for failing to file an appeal is rebutted when petitioner

does not show plausible grounds for relief ).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

.