FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIO ALFONSO GARCIA No. 10-73003
OLIVARES; et al.,
Agency Nos. A076-853-803
Petitioners, A076-853-804
A076-853-805
v. A076-853-877
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Mario Alfonso Garcia Olivares and family, natives and citizens of Mexico,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
*
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).
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 in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen based
on ineffective assistance of counsel where petitioners failed to establish prejudice.
Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir. 2003) (requiring prejudice to
prevail on ineffective assistance claim).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that the new
evidence for cancellation of removal submitted with the motion was insufficient to
establish the requisite hardship. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601-
603 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 10-73003