JOSE FERNANDEZ V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-72386 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED DEC 10 2013 NOT FOR PUBLICATION MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE RAYMUNDO FERNANDEZ, IRMA SENEDRIN RAYMUNDO, No. 10-72386 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A072-138-689 A072-176-224 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 19, 2013** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Jose Raymundo Fernandez and Irma Senedrin Raymundo, natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying their motion to reopen alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for * 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). abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo due process claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen where petitioners failed to establish plausible grounds for relief. Cf. Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1189 (9th Cir. 2004) (presumption of prejudice arising from former attorney s failure to file an appellate brief was not rebutted where petitioner showed plausible grounds for relief). Petitioners contention that the BIA failed to review the new evidence accompanying their second motion to reopen is not supported by the record. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 10-72386

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.