FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BERNARDO MARTINEZ-VELASCO; No. 06-75498
TOMASA MARTINEZ,
Agency Nos. A077-302-649
Petitioners, A077-302-650
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Bernardo Martinez-Velasco and Tomasa Martinez, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motions to reopen and reconsider removal proceedings. Our
*
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).
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion
denials of motions to reopen and reconsider, and we review de novo claims of due
process violations in immigration proceedings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d
785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s February 2, 2006, order denying
petitioners’ cancellation of removal because this petition for review is not timely as
to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua
sponte authority to reconsider proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b). See
Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel because petitioners failed to
establish that former counsel provided them with ineffective assistance, see
Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793-94, and failed to establish that former counsel’s
representation resulted in prejudice, see Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814,
826 (9th Cir. 2003) (petitioner must demonstrate prejudice to prevail on an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 06-75498