Case Name: Marc Henri TILET; Aline Georgens, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-29
Citations: 425 F. App'x 575
Docket Number: No. 09-71004
Parties: Marc Henri TILET; Aline Georgens, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 425
Pages: 575–575

Head Matter:
Marc Henri TILET; Aline Georgens, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71004.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 29, 2011.
Francisco J. Barba, Esquire, Senior, San Jose, CA, for Petitioners.
OIL, Briena Strippoli, Esquire, 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: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, 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
Marc Henri Tilet, a native and citizen of France, and Aline Georgens, a native of Algeria and citizen of France, petitions 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 claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reopen because they presented insufficient evidence to establish prejudice. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir. 2003) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).
To the extent petitioners challenge the BIA's August 6, 2008, order, we lack jurisdiction because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.