
    Kiranpal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71173.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 21, 2014.
    
    Decided Nov. 26, 2014.
    Saad Ahmad, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.
    Eric Warren Marsteller, Esquire, Trial, Oil, Jonathan Aaron Robbins, Esquire, Trial, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: RAWLINSON and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and MARSHALL, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
    
    
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kiranpal Singh (Singh) petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his untimely motion to reopen due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Singh specifically contends that the BIA abused its discretion when it failed to presume prejudice from his prior counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance in filing a boilerplate brief with the BIA.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it failed to apply a presumption of prejudice. An alien is entitled to a rebut-table presumption of prejudice if his counsel’s “incompetence prevents [him] from presenting his case altogether[.]” Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 835 (9th Cir.2011). This court has not applied a presumption of prejudice when counsel filed a boilerplate brief. Instead, a presumption has been applied when counsel did not timely file or failed entirely to file a document. See, e.g., Dearinger ex rel. Volkova v. Reno, 232 F.3d 1042, 1045-46 (9th Cir.2000) (untimely petition for review); Siong v. INS, 376 F.3d 1030, 1037-38 (9th Cir.2004) (untimely notice of appeal); Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1189 (9th Cir.2004) (failure to file a brief). Counsel’s error in these cases “mandate[d] a presumption of prejudice because the adversary process itself ha[d] been rendered presumptively unreliable.... ” Dearinger, 232 F.3d at 1045 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Singh’s prior counsel timely filed a brief with the BIA that challenged, however summarily, the Immigration Judge’s decision. This brief did not prevent Singh from “presenting his case altogether,” Santiago-Rodriguez, 657 F.3d at 835, so as to render the adversary process “presumptively unreliable,” Dearinger, 232 F.3d at 1045.

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
     
      
      . Petitioner cites Grigoryan v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 999, 1006 (9th Cir.2008) in which this court recognized that a presumption of prejudice may arise when counsel files a boilerplate brief. However, this opinion was later withdrawn and superseded by a memorandum disposition. See Grigoryan v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 791 (9th Cir.2008); see also Grigoryan v. Mukasey, 277 Fed.Appx. 742 (9th Cir.2008).
     