Felicito Avendano Geronimo 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FELICITO AVENDANO GERONIMO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-76877
Agency No. A072-881-473
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 10, 2010**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Felicito Avendano Geronimo, a native and citizen of the Philippines,
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 under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims,
FILED
AUG 31 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

05-76877 2
Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003), and for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft, 381
F.3d 855, 857 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA properly concluded that Geronimo failed to establish he was
prejudiced by his former counsel’s performance. See Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212
F.3d 518, 527 n.12 (9th Cir. 2000) (a showing of prejudice can be made if
counsel’s performance “was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of
the proceedings”). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
Geronimo’s motion to reopen. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.
2002) (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary,
irrational, or contrary to law.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --