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NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 26 2010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
RENE NAVARRO MURILLO; No. 08-73621
PATRICIA HEREIDA NAVARRO,
Agency Nos. A079-521-784
Petitioners, A079-521-785
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.
Rene Navarro Murillo and Patricia Hereida Navarro, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
*
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).
motion to 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ March 31, 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).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua
sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v.
INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
The supplemental evidence petitioners presented with their motion
concerned the same basic hardship grounds as their applications for cancellation of
removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601-03 (9th Cir. 2006). We
therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that the
evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of hardship. See id. at
601.
Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 08-73621