Marin Georgeshan v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 488 F. App'x 250 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIN MIKHAYLOVICH No. 11-70338
GEORGESHAN,
Agency No. A076-065-607
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 13, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Marin Mikhaylovich Georgeshan, a native and citizen of Moldova, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decisions ordering him removed and
*
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).
denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the BIA’s factual findings, for abuse of discretion
the denial of a motion to reopen, and de novo questions of law and claims of due
process. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny
the petition for review.
The BIA properly determined that Georgeshan is ineligible for asylum
because of his aggravated felony conviction. Robleto-Pastora v. Holder, 591 F.3d
1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2010).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal
because Georgeshan did not establish past persecution, or that it is more likely than
not he will suffer future persecution on account of his Pentecostal religion. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(b). In addition, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that
the retaliation Georgeshan fears from his cousin in Moldova does not establish his
eligibility for withholding of removal. See Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182,
1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (personal dispute by itself is not grounds for
withholding of removal).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of relief under the
Convention Against Torture because Georgeshan failed to establish it is more
2 11-70338
likely than not he will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a government
official if returned to Moldova. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154
(9th Cir. 2005).
The BIA properly determined that Georgeshan is ineligible to adjust his
status because Georgeshan had previously adjusted his status to that of a lawful
permanent resident (“LPR”) and therefore cannot “re-adjust” his status to that of an
LPR under section 209 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1159, to
avoid removal. See Robleto-Pastora, 591 F.3d at 1058-62.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Georgeshan’s motion to
reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel where Georgeshan failed to
establish prejudice resulting from the alleged errors of his former counsel. See
Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793-94 (a petitioner must establish prejudice to prevail on
an ineffective assistance claim).
Georgeshan’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-70338