The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
07-72836•Edgar Alberto Portillo- Nolasco; v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General
07-72836Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJan 11, 2010
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).
SS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDGAR ALBERTO PORTILLO-
NOLASCO; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72836
Agency Nos. A079-656-200
A079-656-190
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Edgar Alberto Portillo-Nolasco and Maria Gomez-Portillo, natives and
citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings based on
FILED
JAN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
SS/Research 07-72836 2
ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo
due process claims. Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1023 (9th Cir. 2004). We
deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen because petitioners have not established prejudice from the alleged
ineffective assistance. See id. at 1024 (challenges based on ineffective assistance
of counsel require showing of prejudice). Petitioners’ motion does not explain
what additional evidence they would present to establish a nexus to a protected
ground. See Ortiz v. INS, 179 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 1999).
We may not consider petitioners’ new evidence regarding current conditions
in El Salvador. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A)(“[T]he court of appeals shall decide
the petition only on the administrative record on which the order of removal is
based.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.