Robert Martirosian 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). Accordingly, Martirosian’s
request for oral argument is denied.
KS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT MARTIROSIAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70089
Agency No. A075-666-245
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.
Robert Martirosian, a native and citizen of Armenia, 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 to 8
FILED
JAN 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KS/Research 07-70089 2
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen,
and review de novo ineffective assistance of counsel claims. 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 Martirosian did not establish that
his former counsel’s representation resulted in prejudice, and therefore,
Martirosian’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails. See Rojas-Garcia v.
Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir. 2003) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance
claim, petitioner must establish prejudice); cf. Morales Apolinar v. Mukasey, 514
F.3d 893, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2008) (determining that petitioner’s counsel provided
her with prejudicial representation irrespective of counsel’s disciplinary record). It
follows that the BIA did not violate due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Martirosian’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --