William Leopoldo Juarez- Hernandez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM LEOPOLDO JUAREZ-
HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71226
Agency No. A070-184-483
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
William Leopoldo Juarez-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of
counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
MAR 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law
and claims of ineffective assistance. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791
(9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Juarez-Hernandez’s motion
to reopen for failure to establish prejudice where he has not shown how different
conduct by his prior attorney may have affected the outcome of proceedings. See
id. at 793 (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must
demonstrate that he was prejudiced by counsel’s performance). The BIA did not
err in failing to presume prejudice from prior counsel’s alleged failure to file a
brief with the BIA, because Juarez-Hernandez was not deprived entirely of
appellate proceedings. See Martinez-Hernandez v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1086, 1088
n.3 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Petitioner was not deprived of an appellate proceeding.
Rather, Petitioner’s new attorney timely filed a notice of appeal, and the BIA
decided the appeal.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
14-71226 2

-- 2 of 2 --