
    Kuldip SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72239.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Dec. 21, 2012.
    Kuldip Singh, Concord, CA, pro se.
    Michael Christopher Heyse, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kuldip Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen based on 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 questions of law. 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 in denying Singh’s motion to reopen on the ground that Singh failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the alleged ineffective assistance of his former attorneys. See id. at 793-94 (prejudice results when “the performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings”).

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