Case Name: Sergio Augusto Jolon FORONDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-28
Citations: 416 F. App'x 676
Docket Number: No. 08-70499
Parties: Sergio Augusto Jolon FORONDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 416
Pages: 676–677

Head Matter:
Sergio Augusto Jolon FORONDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70499.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed Feb. 28, 2011.
Judith L. Wood, Esquire, Law Offices of Judith L. Wood & Jesse A. Moorman, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Oil, Timothy Bo Stanton, Francis William Fraser, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Susan Houser, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Offiee of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, 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
Sergio Augusto Jolon Foronda, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo ineffective assistance of counsel claims. 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 Foronda's motion to reopen because it was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), Foronda failed to demonstrate changed country conditions to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), and Foronda failed to establish that the alleged ineffective assistance may have affected the outcome of his proceedings, see Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).
The government's motion to strike is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.