Case ID: f-appx_401/html/0219-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gerardo ORTIZ CUENCA; Maria Griselda Espinoza, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72393.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 26, 2010.
    Carlos Alfredo Cruz, Esquire, Law Offices of Carlos A. Cruz, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioners.
    David Nicholas Harling, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Jeffery R. Leist, Trial, DOJ-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: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gerardo Ortiz Cuenca and Maria Grisel-da Espinoza, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. 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, including ineffective assistance of counsel 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’ February 13, 2008, motion to reopen for lack of prejudice. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899-90 (9th Cir.2003) (prejudice results when the performance of counsel “was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

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