Case Name: Joginder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-31
Citations: 372 F. App'x 818
Docket Number: Nos. 07-73865, 08-71951
Parties: Joginder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 818–819

Head Matter:
Joginder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 07-73865, 08-71951.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed March 31, 2010.
Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, Esquire, Chhetry & Assoc., P.C., New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, 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, Joginder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") orders denying his motion to reopen and his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider and review de novo due process claims based on ineffec tive assistance of counsel. 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 Singh's motion to reopen because he failed to establish prejudice. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).
The BIA acted within its discretion when it denied Singh's motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's August 21, 2007, decision denying reopening. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.