Case ID: f-appx_386/html/0732-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Domingo Mario VARGAS and Silvia Sanchez-AIvarez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71556.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 12, 2010.
    Edgardo Quintanilla, Quintanilla Law Firm, Inc., for Petitioners.
    Nehal Kamani, James A. Hurley, Emily Anne Radford, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Domingo Mario Vargas and Silvia Sanchez-AIvarez, 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 questions of law, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. 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 the petitioners’ motion to reopen because the petitioners failed to present an ineffective assistance of counsel claim against attorneys who represented them before the agency. See id. at 793. Further, the petitioners failed to show that they were prejudiced by their former counsel’s actions. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir.2003) (requiring prejudice to prevail in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim).

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