Nicolas
Martirosian v. Holder
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Robert Martirosian, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) or der denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
We agree with the BIA’s conclusion that Martirosian did not establish that his former counsel’s representation resulted in prejudice, and therefore, Martirosian’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, petitioner must establish prejudice); cf. Morales Apolinar v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 893, 898-99 (9th Cir.2008) (determining that petitioner’s counsel provided her with prejudicial representation irrespective of counsel’s disciplinary record). It follows that the BIA did not violate due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).