
    Jose Luis AVILA AVILA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70221.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 23, 2010.
    Joubin Nasseri, Nasseri Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Joseph D. Hardy, Jr., Esquire, Blair O’Connor, Assistant Director, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Luis Avila Avila, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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, including claims of due process viola-. tions due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Avila’s motion to reopen, because the BIA considered the evidence he submitted and acted within its broad discre-" tion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”).

We agree with the BIA’s conclusion that Avila failed to establish that his former representative’s conduct resulted in prejudice, and therefore his ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails. See Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793 (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).

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