
    Gustavo ZAMORA MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-71398.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 12, 2007 .
    Filed March 15, 2007.
    Elsa I. Martinez, Esq., Martinez Golds-by & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michele Y.F. Sarko, Esq., Larry P. Cote, Esq., M. Jocelyn Wright, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gustavo Zamora Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 and we review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zamora Martinez’s motion to reopen, which was based on his prior counsel’s failure to file a brief before the BIA. The Immigration Judge found petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal on three grounds, and petitioner effectively challenged only one of those grounds in his motion to reopen. Because the motion is not supported by any evidence to support a claim that a brief might have made a difference, petitioner has failed to demonstrate prejudice. See id. at 889-900 (to establish a valid due process claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, an alien must show that he was prejudiced by the attorney’s deficient performance).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     