KE ZHENG V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 13-71236 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED MAR 17 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KE HAN ZHENG, No. 13-71236 Petitioner, Agency No. A076-495-576 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals March 10, 2015** Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Ke Han Zheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of * 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). a motion to reopen, Ray v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 582, 586 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zheng’s motion to reopen for failure to establish prejudice from his former attorneys. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir. 2003) (requiring prejudice to state valid claim of ineffective assistance of counsel). Although Zheng alleges former counsel deprived him of an opportunity to challenge the agency’s denial of his applications for relief before this court, and then failed to raise an ineffective assistance claim, he has failed to describe a colorable challenge to the agency’s denial of his applications that would establish “plausible grounds for relief.” Id. (presumption of prejudice rebutted when petitioners do not show plausible grounds for relief). Zheng’s remaining contentions are unavailing. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 13-71236

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.