
    Victor Oswaldo GUERRA BAUTISTA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70654.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 25, 2011.
    Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Stender & Associates, P.C., San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Jessica Eden Sherman, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Victor Oswaldo Guerra Bautista, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen proceedings 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 we review de novo questions of law, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Hernandez v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1014, 1017 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Guerra Bautista’s motion to reopen on the ground that he failed to show he was prejudiced by his former counsel’s conduct. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899-90 (9th Cir.2003) (prejudice results when the performance of counsel “was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Guerra Bautista’s contention that an immigration consultant provided him with ineffective assistance of counsel is foreclosed. See Hernandez, 524 F.3d at 1020 (knowing reliance upon the advice of a non-attorney cannot support a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel in a removal proceeding).

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