Gilbert Jimenez-Ascensio 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.
** 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GILBERT JIMENEZ-ASCENSIO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73956
Agency No. A088-500-286
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.
Gilbert Jimenez-Ascensio, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-73956 2
a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions 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 Jimenez-Ascensio’s motion
to reopen where he failed to show former counsel had provided ineffective
assistance. See id. at 793 (petitioner must demonstrate “that counsel failed to
perform with sufficient competence.”)
Jimenez-Ascensio’s contention that the BIA failed to provide a reasoned
explanation for its decision is not supported by the record. See Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[t]he [BIA] does not have to
write an exegesis on every contention”) (internal quotes omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --