FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GENOVEVA MARTINEZ RIOS and No. 09-74027
AGUSTIN ARMENTA MARTINEZ,
Agency Nos. A095-196-227
Petitioners, A095-196-228
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Genoveva Martinez Rios and Agustin Armenta Martinez, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims, and for abuse 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).
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894
(9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel because petitioners did not
demonstrate that their prior counsel failed to perform with sufficient competence.
Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 855, 858 (9th Cir. 2004). Petitioners’
contention that the BIA failed to make a finding regarding counsels’ competence is
unsupported by the record.
In light of our disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-74027