Case Name: KE HAN ZHENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-17
Citations: 597 F. App'x 956
Docket Number: No. 13-71236
Parties: KE HAN ZHENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 597
Pages: 956–956

Head Matter:
KE HAN ZHENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-71236.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 10, 2015.
Filed March 17, 2015.
Jay Ho Lee, Esquire, Jay Ho Lee Law Offices LLC, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Alison Marie Igoe, Esquire, Principal Litigation Counsel, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, 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
Ke Han Zheng, a native and citizen of China, 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, Ray v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 582, 586 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion m denying Zheng's motion to reopen for failure to establish prejudice from his former attorneys. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003) (requiring prejudice to state valid claim of ineffective assistance of counsel). Although Zheng alleges former counsel deprived him of an opportunity to challenge the agency's denial of his applications for relief before this court, and then failed to raise an ineffective assistance claim, he has failed to describe a colorable challenge to the agency's denial of his applications that would establish "plausible grounds for relief." Id. (presumption of prejudice rebutted when petitioners do not show plausible grounds for relief).
Zheng's remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.