Ines Adalid Fonseca Logos 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
INES ADALID FONSECA LOGOS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70736
Agency No. A094-288-672
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.
Ines Adalid Fonseca Logos, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings to pursue cancellation of removal. 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 --

12-70736 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 Fonseca Logos’s motion to
reopen to pursue cancellation of removal where he failed to establish prejudice
arising from the alleged ineffective assistance by his former counsel. See id. at
793-94.
Fonseca Logos’s contention that the BIA applied the wrong standard fails.
See Ray v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 582, 587 (9th Cir. 2006).
We also reject Fonseca Logo’s arguments that the BIA failed to adequately
consider, weigh, and address the evidence he submitted. See Najmabadi v. Holder,
597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --