Enrique MacIas v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 07 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS ENRIQUE MACIAS-VALENZUELA; Nos. 08-71319 MARIA TERESA MACIAS, 08-74828 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A096-052-290 A096-052-291 v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM * Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals ** Submitted February 15, 2011 Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated petitions for review, Enrique Macias-Valenzuela and Maria Teresa Macias, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for cancellation of * 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). removal, and denying their motion to reopen. 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 petitions for review. The BIA acted within its broad discretion in determining that the new hardship evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”). The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel because petitioners presented insufficient evidence to establish prejudice. See Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793 (petitioner must demonstrate prejudice to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim). Petitioners have waived any challenge to the BIA’s February 28, 2008, order. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996). PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 08-74828