eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2010-06

Peikun Wu v. Holder , 382 F. App'x 576 ( 2010 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                            FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JUN 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEIKUN WU,                                       No. 07-75125
Petitioner,                       Agency No. A098-471-799
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before:        CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Peikun Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and denying his motion
*
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).
to remand 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 remand, Movsisian v. Ashcroft,
    395 F.3d 1095
    , 1098 (9th Cir. 2005),
and review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations
due to ineffective assistance of counsel, Mohammed v. Gonzales,
    400 F.3d 785
    ,
791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
Wu has not raised, and therefore waives, any challenge to the BIA’s
dismissal of his asylum, withholding of removal and CAT claims. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS,
    94 F.3d 1256
    , 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Wu’s motion to remand
because Wu failed to establish prejudice from his former counsel’s representation.
See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft,
    339 F.3d 814
    , 826 (9th Cir. 2003) (to prevail on an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).
We reject Wu’s remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2                                   07-75125