
    Crecencio OLEA-RAMOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-73455.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 25, 2014.
    
    File June 26, 2014.
    Murray David Hilts, Law Offices of Murray D. Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Gary J. Newkirk, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: HAWKINS, 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

Crecencio Olea-Ramos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) 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. Meza-Vallejos v. Holder, 669 F.3d 920, 923-24 (9th Cir.2012). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying for lack of prejudice Olea-Ramos’s motion to reopen based on his prior attorney’s failure to file an appellate brief challenging the immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal. See Serrano v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 1317, 1319 (9th Cir. 2006) (“To assert a valid due process ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice; namely, he must show that he has ‘plausible grounds for relief.’” (citation omitted)). Because Olea-Ramos is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal on account of his prior act of alien smuggling, he is unable to establish plausible grounds for this relief. See Sanchez v. Holder, 560 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc) (“[Ajlien smugglers are one of the classes of persons that cannot be found to have good moral character for the purposes of cancellation of removal----”).

In addition, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Olea-Ramos’s motion to reopen based on his prior attorney’s failure to submit proof of voluntary-departure bond payment, where Olea-Ramos did not provide proof of payment with his motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(c)(3)(ii).

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