From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jimenez-Ascensio v. Holder

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Oct 2, 2013
540 F. App'x 761 (9th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

No. 11-73956 Agency No. A088-500-286

2013-10-02

GILBERT JIMENEZ-ASCENSIO, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

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


On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

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 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.


Summaries of

Jimenez-Ascensio v. Holder

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Oct 2, 2013
540 F. App'x 761 (9th Cir. 2013)
Case details for

Jimenez-Ascensio v. Holder

Case Details

Full title:GILBERT JIMENEZ-ASCENSIO, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Oct 2, 2013

Citations

540 F. App'x 761 (9th Cir. 2013)