Case Name: Neftali GUZMAN-GARCIA, a.k.a. Nefali Garcia-Ruballo, a.k.a. Nefali Garcia-Rubello, a.k.a. Nefali Guzman Garcia, a.k.a. Neftali Guzman Garcia, a.k.a. Nefali Guzman-Garcia, a.k.a. Raul Ortiz-Sanchez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-25
Citations: 514 F. App'x 659
Docket Number: No. 11-70149
Parties: Neftali GUZMAN-GARCIA, a.k.a. Nefali Garcia-Ruballo, a.k.a. Nefali Garcia-Rubello, a.k.a. Nefali Guzman Garcia, a.k.a. Neftali Guzman Garcia, a.k.a. Nefali Guzman-Garcia, a.k.a. Raul Ortiz-Sanchez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 514
Pages: 659–660

Head Matter:
Neftali GUZMAN-GARCIA, a.k.a. Nefali Garcia-Ruballo, a.k.a. Nefali Garcia-Rubello, a.k.a. Nefali Guzman Garcia, a.k.a. Neftali Guzman Garcia, a.k.a. Nefali Guzman-Garcia, a.k.a. Raul Ortiz-Sanchez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-70149.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2013.
Filed March 25, 2013.
Chanpone Pone Sinlapasai-Okamura, Esquire, Marandas & Okamura LLP, Lake Oswego, OR, for Petitioner.
OIL, Margaret Kuehne Taylor, Lindsay Williams Zimliki, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, 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: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Neftalí Guzman-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen proceedings due to 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 review de novo due process claims. 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 Guzman-Garcia's motion to reopen because he failed to show that he was prejudiced by the alleged ineffective assistance of his former counsel. See id. at 793-94 (prejudice results when "the performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.