Imran Khan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
IMRAN KHAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70679
Agency No. A078-650-715
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Imran Khan, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
FILED
OCT 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-70679 2
a motion to reopen and review de novo claims of due process violations.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Khan’s motion to reopen
based on ineffective assistance by his three former attorneys. Khan did not
establish actual deficient performance by his first attorney, where the attorney
withdrew his applications for relief and accepted voluntary departure to allow
petitioner to immigrate to Canada to join his Canadian citizen wife. See Torres-
Chavez v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1096, 1100-02 (9th Cir. 2009). As to the subsequent
attorneys, Khan did not establish prejudice from their failure to file a motion to
reopen, where his declaration states that he met with the attorneys after the
applicable filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (a motion to reopen must
be filed within 90 days of the final administrative order); Mohammed, 400 F.3d at
793-94 (prejudice results when counsel’s actions may have affected the outcome of
proceedings).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --