Case ID: f-appx_418/html/0653-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richart Miguel Gutierrez CADENA; Zoila Del Rosario Gutierrez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72272.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 7, 2011.
    Richart Miguel Gutierrez Cadena, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Zoila Del Rosario Gutierrez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Nehal Kamani, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief 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

Richart Miguel Gutierrez Cadena and Zoila Del Rosario Gutierrez, natives and citizens of Ecuador, petition pro se 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 review de novo constitutional claims. 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 because they presented insufficient evidence to establish prejudice. See id. at 793-94 (petitioner must demonstrate prejudice to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim). It follows that petitioners’ due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000).

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