Bernardino Eudoxio Santiago- Ramirez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BERNARDINO EUDOXIO SANTIAGO-
RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72649
Agency No. A074-428-737
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Bernardino Eudoxio Santiago-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
DEC 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-72649
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 Santiago-Ramirez’s motion
to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel where Santiago-Ramirez did
not provide sufficient evidence to show he had been prejudiced by the performance
of former counsel. 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”). His claims involving two notarios also fail. See Hernandez v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1014, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that “knowing reliance
upon the advice of a non-attorney cannot support a claim for ineffective assistance
of counsel”).
Contrary to Santiago-Ramirez’s contention, the BIA did not utilize an
improper legal standard in its prejudice analysis. His contentions that the BIA
misstated facts and ignored evidence or relevant precedent are not supported by the
record.
In his opening brief, Santiago-Ramirez fails to challenge the BIA’s
discretionary denial of his motion to reopen, which is dispositive with respect to
his request for reopening based on changed country conditions. See Martinez-
Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that issues not

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-72649
supported by argument are deemed abandoned); see also Sequeira-Solano v. INS,
104 F.3d 278, 279 (9th Cir. 1997) (“The BIA considered all of the relevant
circumstances in [petitioner’s] case and decided that a favorable exercise of its
discretion in this case was not warranted.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --