Armando Murillo-Vasquez v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 07 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ARMANDO RUBEN MURILLO- No. 09-70098
VASQUEZ, AKA Armando R. Murillo,
Agency No. A078-462-058
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 2, 2009**
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, SKOPIL and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
Alien Armando Ruben Murillo-Vasquez petitions from the Board of
Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) decision denying his motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
discretion and will reverse only if its decision is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to
law.” Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002). We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We deny Murillo’s petition for review.
The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Murillo’s motion to reopen
or by declining to remand for consideration of his asylum application. Murillo
bases his motion to reopen on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. To prove
ineffective assistance of counsel, an alien must show “(1) that counsel’s
performance was deficient, and (2) that counsel’s deficiency caused prejudice.”
Nehad v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir. 2008). Prejudice occurs when
“counsel’s performance is so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of
the proceedings.” Id. No deficiency that Murillo alleges could have affected the
outcome of his proceedings.
An alien seeking asylum must file his or her application “within 1 year after
the date of the alien’s arrival in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B).
Murillo does not dispute the fact that he lived in the United States for at least seven
years before the initiation of his removal proceedings. Murillo also presents no
facts to meet any exception to the above requirement.
DENIED.