Case Name: Sabino CASARIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-20
Citations: 444 F. App'x 168
Docket Number: No. 10-71851
Parties: Sabino CASARIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 444
Pages: 168–168

Head Matter:
Sabino CASARIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-71851.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 20, 2011.
Nikhil M. Shah, I, Esquire, General, Law Offices of Nikhil M. Shah, Los Ange-les, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Eric Warren Mar-steller, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Matthew Allan Spurlock, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, 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
Sabino Casarin, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 de novo claims of due process violations due to ineffective assistance of counsel, and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. 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 Casarin's motion to reopen, where Casarin failed to establish that the alleged deficiencies in his prior counsel's performance may have affected the outcome of the proceedings. See id. at 793-94 (prejudice results when the performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings).
Casarin's contention that the BIA failed to consider and improperly evaluated all of the evidence submitted with his motion is not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.