Case Name: Harjeet 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: 2011-03-10
Citations: 420 F. App'x 732
Docket Number: No. 08-74700
Parties: Harjeet SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 420
Pages: 732–732

Head Matter:
Harjeet SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-74700.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed March 10, 2011.
Harjeet Singh, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.
Surell Brady, Esquire, Trial, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, 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
Harjeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen proceedings due to 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 de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
We agree with the BIA's conclusion that Singh failed to establish that former counsels' performance resulted in prejudice, and thus his claim of ineffective assistance fails. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899-900 (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 and citation 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.