FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 16 2012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
ARACELI SANTAMARIA-CANO, No. 09-71580
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-082-114
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 13, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Araceli Santamaria-Cano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
*
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).
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 Santamaria-Cano’s motion
to reopen for failure to establish prejudice, where she failed to show that the
alleged ineffective assistance may have affected the outcome of her proceedings.
See id. at 793 (requiring prejudice to prevail on ineffective assistance claim); see
also 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 the institution of removal proceedings and petitioner was
ineligible for relief).
We lack jurisdiction to review Santamaria-Cano’s contention that she
suffered ineffective assistance from the attorney she hired to file her previous
petition for review because she failed to raise this issue before the agency and
thereby failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions
not raised before the agency).
Santamaria-Cano’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 09-71580