FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAUL ESTRADA-ALVAREZ; et al., No. 11-70556
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A079-521-370
A079-521-371
v. A079-521-372
A079-521-373
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent. MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012 **
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Raul Estrada-Alvarez and family, 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 for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785,
*
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).
791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with their
application for cancellation of removal, where petitioners failed to establish that
the actions of their former representatives may have affected their ability to
demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their qualifying
relatives. See id. at 793-94 (a petitioner must establish prejudice to prevail on an
ineffective assistance claim). Therefore, we need not address petitioners’
contention that they were entitled to equitable tolling of the filing limitations
applicable to their motion.
To the extent petitioners moved to reopen to apply for asylum, withholding
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), the BIA did
not abuse its discretion in denying their motion on the grounds that it was untimely
and numerically-barred, that petitioners failed to establish a material change in
circumstances in Mexico in order to qualify for a regulatory exception to the filing
limitations, and that petitioners failed to establish prima facie eligibility for CAT
relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (c)(3)(ii); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d
1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010).
2 11-70556
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Judge Berzon:
I would instruct, prior to issuing a decision on the merits, that the parties
confer with the Ninth Circuit Mediation Office regarding whether they wish to
engage in mediation with respect to petitioners Elizabeth and Jesenia Estrada.
3 11-70556