FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 10 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE RAYMUNDO FERNANDEZ, No. 10-72386
IRMA SENEDRIN RAYMUNDO,
Agency Nos. A072-138-689
Petitioners, A072-176-224
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Jose Raymundo Fernandez and Irma Senedrin Raymundo, natives
and citizens of the Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen alleging ineffective
assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo due
process claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We
deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen where
petitioners failed to establish plausible grounds for relief. Cf. Singh v. Ashcroft,
367 F.3d 1182, 1189 (9th Cir. 2004) (presumption of prejudice arising from former
attorney’s failure to file an appellate brief was not rebutted where petitioner
showed plausible grounds for relief).
Petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to review the new evidence
accompanying their second motion to reopen is not supported by the record. See
Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 10-72386