specifics from which we may conclude that he was denied a reasonable opportunity to present his case. Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kika’s motion to reopen on the ground that he was prejudiced by the alleged ineffectiveness of his counsel. We move to Kika’s second argument— that the BIA’s reliance on Matter of Fuentes in denying his motion to reopen was contrary to the BIA’s own precedent. In Matter of Fuentes, the BIA held, inter alia, that former membership in a national police force is an immutable characteristic and that “[i]t is possible that mistreatment occurring because of such a status in appropriate circumstances could be found to be persecution on account of political opinion or membership in a particular social group.” 19 I. & N. Dec. at 662 (<HOLDING>). Kika argues that the BIA should not have
holding that the alien in that case had not established such circumstances holding that the phrase resident alien means an alien lawfully residing in the united states holding that an alien failed to qualify for the changed circumstances exception by asserting only that his personal circumstances had changed by the birth of a child holding that notice to an alien at the most recent address provided by the alien is legally sufficient recognizing burden is on alien when alien is removable