Diaz v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Diaz v. Gonzales

127 F. App'x 357

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 11, 2005

DocketNo. 03-74684

StatusPublished

This text of 127 F. App'x 357 (Diaz 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.

Bluebook

Diaz v. Gonzales, 127 F. App'x 357 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

***

Joel Corona Diaz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to former 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We review for abuse of discretion, see INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Diaz’s motion to reopen because he failed to show that his prior counsel’s representation “was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings.” See Iturnbarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899-900 (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

MEMORANDUM

***

Joel Corona Diaz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to former 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We review for abuse of discretion, see INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Diaz’s motion to reopen because he failed to show that his prior counsel’s representation “was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings.” See Iturnbarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899-900 (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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 F. App'x 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diaz-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack