Mohamed Hamood Humran, aka Mohammed Hamood Humran Nagi v. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHAMED HAMOOD HUMRAN, aka
Mohammed Hamood Humran Nagi,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-75097
Agency No. A078-192-982
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 4, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: BEEZER, KLEINFELD, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Mohamed Hamood Humran, a native and citizen of Yemen,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") order denying
his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen and review
FILED
OCT 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
de novo claims of due process violations, including claims of ineffective assistance
of counsel, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005), and
deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion to
reopen because his prior counsel had not been retained to provide the services that
Petitioner claimed counsel failed to perform, including the filing of a petition for
review with this court. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 900-01 (9th Cir.
2003) (incompetent representation where counsel failed to prepare and file
suspension of deportation application in accordance with agreement). It follows
that Petitioner’s due process challenge fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246
(9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --