Freddy Arturo Civil-Locon 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
RB/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FREDDY ARTURO CIVIL-LOCON,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-75568
Agency No. A072-132-214
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Freddy Arturo Civil-Locon, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant
FILED
NOV 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

RB/Research 06-75568 2
to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen, and de novo claims of due process violations, including claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel in immigration proceedings. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
We agree with the BIA’s conclusion that Civil-Locon cannot establish that
the alleged ineffective assistance of former counsel resulted in prejudice. See
Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir. 2003) (to prevail on an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim, an alien must demonstrate that counsel’s
performance may have affected the outcome of the proceedings). As Civil-Locon
cannot demonstrate prejudice, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his
motion to reopen.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --