Case ID: f-appx_382/html/0580-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sergio Manuel CEBALLOS-PACHECO, Maria Del Rosario Farfan-Ceballos, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74104.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 7, 2010.
    Carlos Alfredo Cruz, Esquire, Law Offices of Carlos A. Cruz, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioners.
    Brianne Whelan Cohen, Trial, Rebecca Ariel Hoffberg, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Sha-bana Stationwala, Esquire, Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Esquire, DOJ — 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, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sergio Manuel Ceballos-Pacheco and Maria Del Rosario Farfan-Ceballos, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen 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 de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process by denying petitioners’ motion to reopen on the ground that they failed to establish prejudice. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003) (requiring prejudice to state valid claim of ineffective assistance of counsel). Although petitioners allege former counsel deprived them of an opportunity to challenge the BIA’s denial of their cancellation applications before this court, they have failed to describe a colorable challenge to the BIA’s denial of their applications that would establish “plausible grounds for relief.” Id. (presumption of prejudice rebutted when petitioners do not show plausible grounds for relief).

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