Case Name: Nagi Nassim SHAKER, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-27
Citations: 351 F. App'x 185
Docket Number: No. 06-75749
Parties: Nagi Nassim SHAKER, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 351
Pages: 185–186

Head Matter:
Nagi Nassim SHAKER, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75749.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 13, 2009.
Filed Oct. 27, 2009.
Gloria A. Goldman, Esq., Gloria A. Goldman, PC, Tucson, AZ, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Nagi Nassim Shaker, a native and citizen of Egypt, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in immigration proceedings, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petition for review.
We agree with the BIA's conclusion that Shaker did not establish former counsel's representation resulted in prejudice, and thus Shaker's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails. See id. at 793-94 (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.