Case Name: Joel Corona DIAZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-11
Citations: 127 F. App'x 357
Docket Number: No. 03-74684
Parties: Joel Corona DIAZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 127
Pages: 357–357

Head Matter:
Joel Corona DIAZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-74684.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 4, 2005.
Decided April 11, 2005.
Joseph S. Porta, Law Offices of Cohen & Kim, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esq., Cindy S. Ferrier, Esq., Jill Ptacek, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Joel Corona Diaz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to former 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We review for abuse of discretion, see INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Diaz's motion to reopen because he failed to show that his prior counsel's representation "was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings." See Iturnbarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.