Case Name: Rachel Erika PIZAN, a.k.a. Rachel Erika Alcalde, a.k.a. Rachel Erika Bigler, a.k.a. Rachel de Alcalde, a.k.a. Rachel Piza, a.k.a. Rachel Pizan, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-28
Citations: 501 F. App'x 710
Docket Number: No. 11-72380
Parties: Rachel Erika PIZAN, a.k.a. Rachel Erika Alcalde, a.k.a. Rachel Erika Bigler, a.k.a. Rachel de Alcalde, a.k.a. Rachel Piza, a.k.a. Rachel Pizan, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 501
Pages: 710–711

Head Matter:
Rachel Erika PIZAN, a.k.a. Rachel Erika Alcalde, a.k.a. Rachel Erika Bigler, a.k.a. Rachel de Alcalde, a.k.a. Rachel Piza, a.k.a. Rachel Pizan, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-72380.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
Filed Dec. 28, 2012.
Jeremy Frost, Law Offices of Jeremy R. Frost & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Oil, Ann Carroll Varnon, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Rachel Erika Pizan, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her 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. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Pizan's motion to reopen because she failed to show she was prejudiced by her counsel's performance. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003) (presumption of prejudice rebutted where petitioner cannot establish plausible grounds for relief).
In light of our disposition, we need not address Pizan's remaining contentions.
We do not consider the supplemental material filed by Pizan because it is not part of the administrative record. Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir.2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.