Case Name: JIAN ZHANG WU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-19
Citations: 488 F. App'x 257
Docket Number: No. 11-72051
Parties: JIAN ZHANG WU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 488
Pages: 257–257

Head Matter:
JIAN ZHANG WU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-72051.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
Filed Nov. 19, 2012.
Dominic Edward Capeci, I, Esquire, Law Offices of Dominic E. Capeci, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Melissa Katherine Lott, Trial, OIL, 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: CANBY, TROTT, 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
Jian Zhang Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Wu's motion to reopen because he failed to establish that his former attorneys' alleged ineffective assistance resulted in prejudice. See id. at 793-94 (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir.2011).
Wu's motion to supplement the record is denied. See Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir.2010) (the court's review is confined to the administrative record before the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.