Medina-Hernandez v. Holder
This text of 323 F. App'x 502 (Medina-Hernandez v. Holder) 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
Jose Inez Medina-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review [503]*503of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1023 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA correctly rejected Medina-Hernandez’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim because any deficiencies in the representation did not prejudice him. See Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518, 527 n. 12 (9th Cir.2000) (“Due process challenges to deportation proceedings require a showing of prejudice to succeed.”). We conclude that there was no error in the BIA’s determination that its prior decision properly considered Medina-Hernandez’s perjury conviction in denying his application for relief under former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid[503]*503ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
323 F. App'x 502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medina-hernandez-v-holder-ca9-2009.