Bernardo Perfecto-Cornelio 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BERNARDO PERFECTO-CORNELIO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72363
Agency No. A093-237-450
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Bernardo Perfecto-Cornelio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
FILED
MAR 01 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-72363 2
reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in
part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Perfecto-Cornelio’s motion
to reopen because he presented insufficient evidence to establish prejudice. See
Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir. 2003) (to prevail on an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim, petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).
We lack jurisdiction to review Perfecto-Cornelio’s remaining contentions
because he failed to exhaust these issues before the BIA. Zara v. Ashcroft, 383
F.3d 927, 930-31 (9th Cir. 2004) (“A petitioner cannot satisfy the exhaustion
requirement by making a general challenge to the IJ’s decision, but, rather, must
specify which issues form the basis of the appeal.”)
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --