Case Name: Martha QUINTANA-BONILLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-05
Citations: 427 F. App'x 555
Docket Number: No. 09-72098
Parties: Martha QUINTANA-BONILLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 427
Pages: 555–556

Head Matter:
Martha QUINTANA-BONILLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72098.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2011.
Filed April 13, 2011.
Dori L. Zavala, Esquire, Zavala Law Offices, Glendale, AZ, for Petitioner.
Linda Y. Cheng, 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: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Martha Quintana-Bonilla, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen proceedings due to 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 claims of due process violations. 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 Quintana-Bonilla's motion to reopen where she failed to establish prejudice resulting from her former counsel's representation. See id. at 793-94 (prejudice results when counsel's performance "was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings") (internal quotation marks and citation 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.