
    Ernesto Alonso SANTIAGO-MAYORGA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-73439.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
    
    Filed March 2, 2009.
    Ernesto Alonso Santiago-Mayorga, Moreno Valley, CA, pro se.
    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, Kristin Edison, Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Brianne Whelan Cohen, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ernesto Alonso Santiago-Mayorga petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings due to ineffective assistance of counsel. 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 ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

We agree with the BIA that Santiago-Mayorga failed to establish that the ineffective assistance of his former counsels resulted in his overstaying his voluntary departure period. See Granados-Oseguera v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam) (“[Bjecause the IIR-IRA amendments withdraw the ‘exceptional circumstances’ avenue for relief, there is no prejudice to [petitioner] resulting from the alleged ineffective assistance.”); see also Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, petitioner must demonstrate prejudice resulting from the ineffective assistance).

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