George Godinho 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GEORGE GODINHO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70971
Agency No. A098-141-535
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
George Godinho, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
FILED
OCT 01 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-70971 2
a motion to reopen. Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1023 (9th Cir. 2004). We
review de novo claims of due process violations, including the ineffective
assistance of counsel, and review for substantial evidence findings of fact
regarding counsel's performance. Id. We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Godinho’s motion for failure
to establish that his prior attorneys were ineffective where the record does not
compel the conclusion that Godinho’s prior attorneys were aware that the alleged
persecution by the police was the result of religious animus or that his prior
attorneys failed to investigate and prepare his case. See Lin, 377 F.3d at 1023
(petitioner must establish that counsel's performance prevented him from
reasonably presenting his case).
Godinho’s contention that the BIA failed to employ the proper two-pronged
analysis of both ineffective assistance and prejudice when evaluating his
ineffective assistance of counsel claims is belied by the record.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Godinho’s contentions regarding
his diligence and the prejudice arising from the alleged ineffective assistance.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --