Armando Gonzalez-Oregon 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).
NV/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMANDO GONZALEZ-OREGON,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70901
Agency No. A079-289-584
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.
Armando Gonzalez-Oregon, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

NV/Research 07-70901 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We
review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings.
Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1023 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for
review.
We agree with the BIA’s conclusion that Gonzalez-Oregon has not
established prejudice from his prior counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance. See
Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 901-02; see also Lin, 377 F.3d at 1027 (to demonstrate
prejudice, a petitioner must demonstrate “plausible grounds for relief”).
Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen.
See Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 903.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --