Case Name: Giovanny SONORZA-CENTENO, aka Giovanny Patricio Sornoza, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-28
Citations: 333 F. App'x 245
Docket Number: No. 06-73426
Parties: Giovanny SONORZA-CENTENO, aka Giovanny Patricio Sornoza, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 333
Pages: 245–245

Head Matter:
Giovanny SONORZA-CENTENO, aka Giovanny Patricio Sornoza, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73426.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
Filed Sept. 28, 2009.
Carlos A. Cruz, Law Offices of Carlos A. Cruz, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
Eric Warren Marsteller, Esq., OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Giovanny Sonorza-Centeno, a native and citizen of Ecuador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, and de novo claims of due process violations, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in immigration proceedings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
We agree with the BIA's conclusion in its June 7, 2006, order that Sonorza-Cen-teno failed to present evidence or argument that demonstrated plausible grounds for relief from removal, and thus his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails. 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.