Case Name: Karine KHACHATRYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-21
Citations: 501 F. App'x 668
Docket Number: No. 11-70775
Parties: Karine KHACHATRYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 501
Pages: 668–669

Head Matter:
Karine KHACHATRYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-70775.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
Filed Dec. 21, 2012.
Robert Charles Marton, The Law Alliance, A.P.C., Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
Brooke Maurer, Trial, Nancy Ellen Friedman, Trial, DOJ — 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: GOODWIN, WALLACE, 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
Karine Khachatryan, a native of the former U.S.S.R. and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen. 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 questions of law. 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 Khachatryan's motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel because she failed to show that she was prejudiced by her former counsel's conduct. 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"). Khacha-tryan's due process claim therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.