FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERARDO ORTIZ CUENCA; MARIA No. 08-72393
GRISELDA ESPINOZA,
Agency Nos. A079-280-760
Petitioners, A079-280-761
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Gerardo Ortiz Cuenca and Maria Griselda Espinoza, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their 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
*
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).
reopen, and review de novo constitutional claims, including 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 petitioners’ February 13,
2008, motion to reopen for lack of prejudice. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d
889, 899-90 (9th Cir. 2003) (prejudice results when the performance of counsel
“was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings”)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-72393