Case Name: Roehl Henson BERNARDINO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-05
Citations: 427 F. App'x 588
Docket Number: No. 09-72105
Parties: Roehl Henson BERNARDINO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 427
Pages: 588–589

Head Matter:
Roehl Henson BERNARDINO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72105.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2011.
Filed April 15, 2011.
Nancy Ellen Miller, Esquire, Law Offices of Reeves & Associates, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Ethan B. Kanter, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, 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
Roehl Henson Bernardino, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of his motion to reopen 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 constitutional claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Bernardino's motion to reopen on the ground that he failed to show he was prejudiced by his former counsel's conduct. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899-90 (9th Cir.2003) (prejudice results when the performance of counsel "was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings") (internal quotation marks omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.