The Ninth Circuit has determined that a petitioner who alleges a violation of his right to counsel must demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the violation. The court declined to accord a presumption of prejudice in such a situation. With respect to the petitioner, the court noted that "he might have been able to show prejudice had he attempted to contest the facts rendering him removable yet been foreclosed from doing so by virtue of his earlier un-counseled admissions. But he has never attempted to contest the charges against him, even after having an opportunity to consult with counsel, so he cannot contend that his un-counseled admissions cost him the chance to raise plausible grounds for contesting removal. Nor can he claim prejudice by virtue of his un-counseled waiver of the right to request withholding of removal, since he was ultimately given a reasonable fear interview and allowed to make the case that he should be granted withholding of removal."
The full text of Gomez-Velazco v. Sessions can be found here: