Case Name: Gilbert JIMENEZ-ASCENSIO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-02
Citations: 540 F. App'x 761
Docket Number: No. 11-73956
Parties: Gilbert JIMENEZ-ASCENSIO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 761–762

Head Matter:
Gilbert JIMENEZ-ASCENSIO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-73956.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
Filed Oct. 2, 2013.
Jan Joseph Bejar, Esquire, Law Offices of Jan Joseph Bejar, a Professional Law Corporation, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
Jennifer A. Singer, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, 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
Gilbert Jimenez-Ascensio, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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, and review de novo questions of law. 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 Jimenez-Ascensio's motion to reopen where he failed to show former counsel had provided ineffective assistance. See id. at 793 (petitioner must demonstrate "that counsel failed to perform with sufficient competence.")
Jimenez-Ascensio's contention that the BIA failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision is not supported by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987, 990 (9th Cir.2010) ("[t]he [BIA] does not have to write an exegesis on every contention") (internal quotes omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R.