Case Name: Ilbir CAMPOS-MEJIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-28
Citations: 440 F. App'x 591
Docket Number: No. 09-72583
Parties: Ilbir CAMPOS-MEJIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 440
Pages: 591–591

Head Matter:
Ilbir CAMPOS-MEJIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72583.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 28, 2011.
Maziar Razi, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Jennifer R. Khouri, 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: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, 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
Ilbir Campos-Mejia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims, and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. 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 Campos-Mejia's motion to reopen on the ground that he failed to show prejudice from his former counsel's conduct. See Ortiz v. INS, 179 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir.1999) ("Prejudice is found 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.