Karine Khachatryan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KARINE KHACHATRYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70775
Agency No. A079-251-208
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Karine Khachatryan, a native of the former U.S.S.R. and citizen of Armenia,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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 reopen, and review de novo questions
FILED
DEC 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-70775 2
of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny
the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Khachatryan’s motion to
reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel because she failed to show that
she was prejudiced by her former counsel’s conduct. See id. at 793-94 (prejudice
results when “the performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have
affected the outcome of the proceedings”). Khachatryan’s due process claim
therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring
error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --