Guangfu Liu 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GUANGFU LIU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71088
Agency No. A096-339-712
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Guangfu Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand and
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8
FILED
JUL 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71088 2
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand
or reopen, Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005), and review
de novo due process claims, see 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 Liu’s motion to remand
based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Because Liu did not demonstrate
insufficient notice of his hearing, he did not establish that former counsel’s actions
“may have affected the outcome” of his proceedings. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(4)(ii); Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793-94 (to prevail on an ineffective
assistance claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that “the performance of counsel
was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings”)
(internal citation omitted)).
In addition, the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Liu’s second
motion to reopen as number-barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Liu’s remaining due process
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --