Roberto Conde-Rodriguez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERTO CONDE-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72986
Agency No. A078-058-206
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Roberto Conde-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen proceedings due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
FILED
NOV 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72986 2
motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law, including claims of due
process violations. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Conde-Rodriguez’s motion
to reopen on the ground that he failed to show he was prejudiced by his former
counsel’s representation. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir.
2003) (prejudice results when counsel’s performance “was so inadequate that it
may have affected the outcome of the proceedings”) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
Conde-Rodriguez’s contentions that the BIA failed to apply the correct legal
standard and failed to consider the evidence he submitted with his motion to
reopen are belied by the record.
To the extent Conde-Rodriguez seeks an order remanding to the BIA to
reinstate his voluntary departure period, we lack jurisdiction to grant that request.
See Garcia v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 2004) (order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --