Diaz-Martinez v. Gonzales
This text of 168 F. App'x 167 (Diaz-Martinez v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Santos Diaz-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance without opinion of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings, in which he alleges ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1187 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc), we deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion in concluding that Diaz-Martinez “failed to present any evidence that he was prejudiced by the legal representation by La Guadalupana.” The letter Diaz-Martinez submitted from the Orange County District Attorney’s office concerning its investigation of La Guadalupana does not establish that Diaz-Martinez received any ineffective assistance of counsel, or that the outcome of his proceedings may have been affected. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 824-26 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
168 F. App'x 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diaz-martinez-v-gonzales-ca9-2006.