FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 5 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GLORIA QUINTERO-QUINTERO, No. 09-72807
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-360-149
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 2, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Gloria Quintero-Quintero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her
motion to reopen and reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider,
*
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).
Valeriano v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 669, 672 (9th Cir. 2007), and we deny the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Quintero-Quintero’s motion
to reconsider where she did not identify any error of law or fact in the BIA’s
previous determination that she failed to establish prejudice resulting from the
alleged errors of former counsel because she did not show any plausible grounds
for relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814,
826 (9th Cir. 2003) (presumption of prejudice arising from counsel’s failure to file
an appeal is rebutted where petitioner cannot show plausible grounds for relief).
To the extent Quintero-Quintero also sought reopening on the basis of new
hardship evidence, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion
where the new evidence she submitted did not establish prima facie eligibility for
cancellation of removal. See Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912-13 (9th Cir.
2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-72807