Court Opinion

ID: 219906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-06-28 22:44:52+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:28:42.517739
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           JUN 28 2011

                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ILBIR CAMPOS-MEJIA,                              No. 09-72583

               Petitioner,                       Agency No. A029-266-213

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

               Respondent.

                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted June 15, 2011 **

Before:        CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

       Ilbir Campos-Mejia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective

assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
novo due process claims, and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to

reopen. 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 Campos-Mejia’s motion to

reopen on the ground that he failed to show prejudice from his former counsel’s

conduct. See Ortiz v. INS, 179 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Prejudice is

found when the performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have

affected the outcome of the proceedings.”).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         2                                   09-72583