Case Name: Edgar GARCIA-MONTOYA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-14
Citations: 171 F. App'x 79
Docket Number: No. 04-75352
Parties: Edgar GARCIA-MONTOYA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 171
Pages: 79–80

Head Matter:
Edgar GARCIA-MONTOYA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-75352.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2006.
Decided March 14, 2006.
Before: CANBY, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Edgar Gareia-Montoya, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.
Garcia-Montoya moved to reopen on the ground that his former attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel during his merits hearing and subsequent appeal from the denial of his cancellation of removal application. Garcia-Montoya cannot establish prejudice as a result of the alleged ineffective representation because he admitted he has no active relationship with his daughter, his only qualifying relative for purposes of establishing hardship. Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to reopen. See id. at 901 (explaining that ineffective assistance of counsel must prejudice the alien to merit reopening).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.