
    William Leopoldo JUAREZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-71226.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2016.
    
    Filed March 22, 2016.
    Mariela Elizabeth Camisassa, International Legal Alliance Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Michael Christopher Heyse, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

William Leopoldo Juarez-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal 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 review de novo questions of law and claims of ineffective assistance. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Juarez-Hernandez’s motion to reopen for failure to establish prejudice where he has not shown how different conduct by his prior attorney may have affected the outcome of proceedings. See id. at 793 (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that he was prejudiced by counsel’s performance). The BIA did not err in failing to presume prejudice from prior counsel’s alleged failure to file a brief with the BIA, because Juarez-Hernandez was not deprived entirely of appellate proceedings. See Martinez-Hernandez v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1086, 1088 n. 3 (9th Cir.2015) (“Petitioner was not deprived of an appellate proceeding. Rather, Petitioner’s new attorney timely filed a notice of appeal, and the BIA decided the appeal.”).

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