Case Name: Artush GUKASYAN, a.k.a. Arthush Gukasyan, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-21
Citations: 513 F. App'x 652
Docket Number: Nos. 09-73257, 10-70493
Parties: Artush GUKASYAN, a.k.a. Arthush Gukasyan, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 513
Pages: 652–652

Head Matter:
Artush GUKASYAN, a.k.a. Arthush Gukasyan, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 09-73257, 10-70493.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2013.
Filed March 21, 2013.
Audra Rose Behne, Law Office of Audra R. Behne, A Professional Corporation, En-cino, CA, for Petitioner.
David Nicholas Harling, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Oil, 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: 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
In these consolidated petitions for review, Artush Gukasyan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") orders denying his motions to reopen removal proceedings based on 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 petitions for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gukasyan's second and third motions to reopen where he failed to establish he was prejudiced by his former counsels' alleged ineffective assistance. See id. at 793-94 (to demonstrate prejudice, alien must establish that counsel's performance may have affected the outcome of proceedings).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.