
    Armando BARRAGAN-GARFIAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-73869.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 8, 2012.
    
    Filed Aug. 16, 2012.
    Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Federal Immigration Counselors, Inc., APC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Ada Elsie Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jonathan F. Potter, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Armando Barragan-Garfias, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. 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 due process claims. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Barragan-Garfias’ motion to reopen on the ground that he did not demonstrate prejudice from the alleged ineffective assistance of his former counsel. Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 899-90. Barra-gan-Garfias failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture. See Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir.2003) (a motion to reopen will not be granted unless the respondent establishes a case of prima facie eligibility for the underlying relief sought.)

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

Judge BERZON:

I would instruct, prior to issuing a decision on the merits, that the parties confer with the Ninth Circuit Mediation Office regarding whether they wish to engage in mediation. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     