Case Name: Hector Baltazar MOLINA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-01
Citations: 417 F. App'x 652
Docket Number: No. 08-73935
Parties: Hector Baltazar MOLINA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 417
Pages: 652–652

Head Matter:
Hector Baltazar MOLINA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73935.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed March 1, 2011.
Pasquale Lombardo, Law Offices of Pasquale Lombardo, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Joanna L. Watson, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, 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
Hector Baltazar Molina, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. 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 claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Molina's motion to reopen where he failed to establish that ineffective assistance of counsel may have affected the outcome of his case. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).
Molina's remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.