MEMORANDUM **

Rodrigo Aguilar-Vergara, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 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, Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004), and we review de novo ineffective assistance of counsel claims, 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 Aguilar-Vergara’s motion to reopen because Aguilar-Vergara failed to show he was prejudiced by his former counsel’s withdrawal of his asylum application. See Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 855, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2004) (to reopen because of ineffective assistance of counsel, petitioners must show that counsel’s performance was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings); see also Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).

Aguilar-Vergara’s contentions that the BIA erred by applying an incorrect legal standard and by making an improper adverse credibility determination are belied by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.