Case Name: Marat Ginayatovich UMAROV, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-09
Citations: 386 F. App'x 708
Docket Number: No. 08-70056
Parties: Marat Ginayatovich UMAROV, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 386
Pages: 708–708

Head Matter:
Marat Ginayatovich UMAROV, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70056.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 9, 2010.
Gregory J. Boult, Esq., Gleckman & Sin-der, Los Angeles, 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, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Marat Ginayatovich Umarov, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order denying his motion to reopen proceedings 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 we review de novo questions of law, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Hernandez v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1014, 1017 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.
Umarov's contention that an acquaintance whom he knew not to be a lawyer provided him with ineffective assistance of counsel is foreclosed by Hernandez, 524 F.3d at 1020 (holding that knowing reliance upon the advice of a non-attorney cannot support a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel in a removal proceeding). His due process contention therefore fails. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.