Case Name: Marco MAGALLON-PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-03
Citations: 670 F. App'x 520
Docket Number: No. 14-72716
Parties: Marco MAGALLON-PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 520–521

Head Matter:
Marco MAGALLON-PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-72716
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 25, 2016
Filed November 03, 2016
Brian Blender, Blender Law Office PC, Boise, ID, for Petitioner.
Jeffery R. Leist, Trial Attorney, Sabati-no F. Leo, Trial Attorney, OIL, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, 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
Marco Magallon-Pineda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Magallon-Pineda's motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, where Magallon-Pineda failed to establish prejudice resulting from his prior attorney's alleged ineffective assistance. See id. at 793 (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that he was prejudiced by counsel's performance).
In light of this disposition, we do not address Magallon-Pineda's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.