Dominguez-Olivas

MEMORANDUM *

Miguel Manuel Dominguez-Olivas appeals from a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) not to reopen his application for cancellation of removal. We review decisions not to reopen for abuse of discretion, regardless of the underlying claim. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 , 112 S.Ct. 719 , 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992). Dominguez-Olivas argues that his attorney’s performance on his original appeal to the BIA constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. His attorney filed the appeal from the Immigration Judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal, but did not file a supporting brief and did not inform Dominguez-Olivas when his appeal was denied. These facts give rise to a presumption of prejudice, but because Dominguez-Olivas would have no plausible grounds for relief had his attorney acted correctly, we hold that the BIA did not *225 abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen.

Dominguez-Olivas is entitled to a presumption of prejudice because his attorney failed to file a brief. Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (2003). However, that presumption is rebutted if he cannot show that he had “plausible grounds for relief’ in his appeal.…