Socheath Chaing v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SOCHEATH CHAING,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72137
Agency No. A095-195-549
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Socheath Chaing, a native and citizen of Cambodia, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
DEC 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-72137
reopen and review de novo questions of law. Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182,
1185 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err or abuse its discretion in denying Chaing’s motion to
reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, where Chaing’s former
representative’s decision to withdraw her applications for relief and pursue
voluntary departure was a tactical one, and where Chaing has not demonstrated she
is plausibly eligible for adjustment of status. See Martinez-Hernandez v. Holder,
778 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2015) (“A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
requires a showing of inadequate performance and prejudice. . . . [A prejudice]
showing cannot be made unless a petitioner demonstrates, at a minimum, that the
asserted ground for relief is at least plausible.” (citations omitted)).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Chaing’s contentions regarding
compliance with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and regarding
not having been advised of the consequences of filing a frivolous asylum claim.
See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).
Chaing’s request for referral to the Mediation Unit is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --