Case Name: Armando GONZALEZ-OREGON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-14
Citations: 358 F. App'x 920
Docket Number: No. 07-70901
Parties: Armando GONZALEZ-OREGON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 358
Pages: 920–921

Head Matter:
Armando GONZALEZ-OREGON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70901.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
Christopher James Todd, Law Office of Christopher Todd, Mill Valley, CA, for Petitioner.
Julie M. Iversen, Trial, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Armando Gonzalez-Oregon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion 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. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We re view de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1023 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review.
We agree with the BIA's conclusion that Gonzalez-Oregon has not established prejudice from his prior counsel's alleged ineffective assistance. See Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 901-02; see also Lin, 377 F.3d at 1027 (to demonstrate prejudice, a petitioner must demonstrate "plausible grounds for relief'). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. See Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 903.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.