
    Carlos SALAZAR-HOLGUIN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-72038
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 21, 2016
    Brandy Lynnell Brown, Esquire, Attorney, Annie J. Kung, Esquire, Attorney, Kung ■<& Associates, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitiqner.
    Surell Brady, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos Salazar-Holguin, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. We review de novo claims of due process violations 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 err in rejecting Salazar-Holguin’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to demonstrate prejudice, where Salazar-Holguin has failed to establish that he has any plausible grounds for asylum, adjustment of status, or any other form of relief from removal. See Morales Apolinar v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 893, 898 (9th Cir. 2008) (to establish prejudice resulting from counsel’s deficient performance, a petitioner must “show plausible grounds for relief’ (citation and quotation marks omitted)).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Salazar-Holguin’s remaining contentions concerning former counsel’s performance or his noncompliance with the requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988).

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