Case ID: f-appx_418/html/0646-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Enrique MACIAS-VALENZUELA; Maria Teresa Macias, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 08-71319, 08-74828.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 7, 2011.
    Maziar Razi, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated petitions for review, Enrique Macias-Valenzuela and Maria Teresa Macias, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal, and 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 and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petitions for review.

The BIA acted within its broad discretion in determining that the new hardship evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”).

The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel because petitioners presented insufficient evidence to establish prejudice. See Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793 (petitioner must demonstrate prejudice to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim).

Petitioners have waived any challenge to the BIA’s February 28, 2008, order. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.