MARIA CASTILLO V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-73741 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JUN 16 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA ESTHER CASTILLO, Petitioner, No. 12-73741 Agency No. A088-469-135 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 12, 2014** Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Maria Esther Castillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions * 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). of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Castillo s motion to reopen as to ineffective assistance of counsel where Castillo failed to establish prejudice arising from any alleged ineffective assistance by her former representatives. See id. at 793-94 ( [P]rejudice results when the performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings. (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Castillo s motion to reopen as to changed country conditions where the motion was filed more than two years after her removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and the BIA acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, see Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency may deny a motion to reopen based on failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 12-73741

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.