Xiaoyuan Ma v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XIAOYUAN MA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72268
Agency No. A044-414-695
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Xiaoyuan Ma, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reopen
removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s
FILED
DEC 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo due process claims. Singh v.
Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Ma’s motion to reopen due
to the lack of prejudice from her former attorney’s failure to file an application for
cancellation of removal, where Ma has not established plausible grounds for
success on the merits of such an application. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft,
339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that the absence of “plausible grounds
for relief” rebuts the presumption of prejudice); see also Singh, 367 F.3d at 1190
(stating that the presumption of prejudice is sustained only if the petitioner’s claim
“could plausibly succeed on the merits”); cf. Bernal v. INS, 154 F.3d 1020, 1022
(9th Cir. 1998) (“[A]n applicant cannot be regarded as a person of good moral
character if . . . the applicant gave ‘false testimony for the purpose of obtaining
benefits under this chapter.’” (citation omitted)); Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 965
(9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (relying on an IJ’s finding that the petitioner’s “testimony
concerning her marriage [was] not credible” to uphold a determination that the
petitioner lacked good moral character).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-72268 2

-- 2 of 2 --