Sarup Lal 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).
JTK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SARUP LAL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 07-73135
07-74562
Agency No. A079-290-266
MEMORANDUM *
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Sarup Lal, a native and citizen of
India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders
denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel and his
FILED
MAR 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JTK/Research 07-73135 2
motion to reconsider that denial. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact regarding counsel’s
performance, Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1024 (9th Cir. 2004), and review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider, Cano-Merida v.
INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petitions for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Lal did not
establish ineffective assistance by his former counsel because the record does not
compel the conclusion that Lal paid his former counsel to file a petition for review.
See Lin, 377 F.3d at 1023 (petitioner must establish that counsel’s performance
prevented him from reasonably presenting his case). Because Lal did not establish
ineffective assistance of counsel, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying
the motion to reopen. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002)
(BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational,
or contrary to law”).
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Lal’s motion to
reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the
BIA’s order denying the motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --