FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE PEREZ TOLENTINO; BEATRIZ No. 11-72514
ARAUZA PEREZ,
Agency Nos. A075-725-871
Petitioners, A075-725-872
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 14, 2013 **
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Perez Tolentino and Beatriz Arauza Perez, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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. 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 petitioners’ motion to
reopen where they failed to establish prejudice arising from the alleged ineffective
assistance by their former counsel. See id. at 793-94 (“[P]rejudice results when the
performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of
the proceedings.” (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
It follows that petitioners’ due process claim, which rests entirely on the
failure to reopen, fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-72514