Case ID: f-appx_328/html/0438-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Aurora Carolina VAZQUEZ-MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74156.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 16, 2009.
    
    Filed July 1, 2009.
    Rosaura Del Carmen Rodriguez, Rios Cantor, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Kiley L. Kane, Esquire, Trial, Brooke Maurer, Trial, John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Esquire, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
    Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Aurora Carolina Vazquez-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

We agree with the BIA that Vazquez-Mendoza failed to show she was prejudiced by her former representative’s performance. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003) (presumption of prejudice rebutted where alien could not demonstrate plausible grounds for relief).

Vazquez-Mendoza’s contention that the BIA utilized the incorrect prejudice standard is unavailing.

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