FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN MARIN COLCHADO; SUSANA No. 10-71722
MARIN,
Agency Nos. A095-002-041
Petitioners, A095-002-042
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012 **
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Juan Marin Colchado and Susana Marin, 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 based on ineffective
*
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).
assistance of counsel. 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 claims of
due process violations. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen. Petitioners’ evidence is not sufficient to show that the alleged ineffective
assistance of counsel may have affected the outcome of their proceedings. See
Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 901-02 (9th Cir. 2003) (requiring prejudice to
prevail on ineffective assistance claim). In addition, petitioners cannot establish
ineffective assistance based on the actions leading to the institution of their
removal proceedings. See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 973-75 (9th Cir.
2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2005) (no ineffective assistance where
representative’s incorrect advice led to issuance of Notice to Appear and petitioner
was ineligible for relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.