JOSE QUINTEROS RAMOS V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-72907 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE CATALINO QUINTEROS RAMOS, No. 11-72907 Agency No. A072-130-907 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM * v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 19, 2012 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Jose Catalino Quinteros Ramos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. * 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). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Quinteros Ramos s motion to reopen where Quinteros Ramos has not established prejudice from his prior counsel s alleged ineffective assistance. See id. at 793-94 (prejudice results when the performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings ). We lack jurisdiction over Quinteros Ramos s contention that the immigration judge failed to advise Quinteros Ramos properly about the fingerprinting requirement because this is not a timely challenge to the agency s prior order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 11-72907

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.