Case ID: f-appx_538/html/0808-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Paulino TAPIA-ORTIZ; Ines Tapia, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70276.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 14, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 19, 2013.
    Sung Uk Park, Esquire, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    Dana Michelle Camilleri, OIL, Yanal H. Yousef, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Paulino Tapia-Ortiz and Ines Tapia, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective 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 questions of law. 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 because they failed to show they were prejudiced by their counsels’ performance. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003) (presumption of prejudice rebutted where petitioner cannot establish plausible grounds for relief).

Petitioners’ contentions that the BIA did not properly address their ineffective assistance of counsel claim and failed to consider all the evidence presented in their motion are not supported by the record.

In light of this disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining contentions.

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