Case ID: f-appx_505/html/0657-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Oscar Arturo Sanchez HERNANDEZ and Alma Rosa Lara Batres, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71231.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 15, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 17, 2013.
    Oscar Arturo Sanchez Hernandez, Ar-vin, CA, pro se.
    Alma Rosa Lara Batres, Arvin, CA, pro se.
    Oil, Margaret Kuehne Taylor, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Oscar Arturo Sanchez Hernandez and Alma Rosa Lara Batres, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel where petitioners failed to establish prejudice. See id. at 793-94 (prejudice results when the alleged deficient conduct “may have affected the outcome of the proceedings” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision declining to exercise its sua sponte authority under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).

Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unavailing, or not supported by the record.

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