22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T510,MEMORANDUM Felicito Avendano Gerónimo, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo due process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 855, 857 (9th Cir.2004) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review. The BIA properly concluded that Gerón-imo failed to establish he was prejudiced by his former counsel’s performance. See Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518 , 527 n. 12 (9th Cir.2000) (a showing of prejudice can be made if counsel’s performance “was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings”). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Geronimo’s motion to reopen. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T53d,

MEMORANDUM

Felicito Avendano Gerónimo, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo due process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 855, 857 (9th Cir.2004) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA properly concluded that Gerón-imo failed to establish he was prejudiced by his former counsel’s performance. See Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518 , 527 n. 12 (9th Cir.2000) (a showing of prejudice can be made if counsel’s performance “was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings”). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Geronimo’s motion to reopen. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.