Case Name: Satbir Singh RANDHAWA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-22
Citations: 423 F. App'x 701
Docket Number: No. 09-72058
Parties: Satbir Singh RANDHAWA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 423
Pages: 701–702

Head Matter:
Satbir Singh RANDHAWA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72058.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 22, 2011.
Pardeep S. Grewal, Esquire, Law Offices of Pardeep S. Grewal, Castro Valley, CA, for Petitioner.
Cindy S. Ferrier, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Satbir Singh Randhawa, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. 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 claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. 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 Randhawa's motion to reopen where he failed to establish that ineffective assistance of counsel may have affected the outcome of his case. See id. at 793-94 (to demonstrate prejudice, alien must establish that counsel's performance may have affected the outcome of proceedings).
Randhawa's remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.