
    Francisco Javier Barrera MORENO, aka Francisco Moreno, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-73770.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 7, 2015.
    
    Filed April 15, 2015.
    Jaime Jasso, Esquire, Law Offices of Jaime Jasso, Westlake Village, CA, for Petitioner.
    Todd J. Cochran, Oil, 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: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Francisco Javier Barrera Moreno, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. 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 questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Barrera Moreno’s motion to reopen for failure to establish prejudice, where Barrera Moreno testified at his removal hearing that he had no fear of returning to El Salvador, see id. at 793 (to prevail on an a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, an alien must demonstrate that he was prejudiced by counsel’s performance), and failed to establish prejudice from any failure to advise him of his right to appeal the withdrawal of his Temporary Protected Status, see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Barrera Moreno’s remaining contentions.

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