Case Name: Maria RODRIGUEZ-PALMERIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-06
Citations: 478 F. App'x 405
Docket Number: No. 10-72892
Parties: Maria RODRIGUEZ-PALMERIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 478
Pages: 405–406

Head Matter:
Maria RODRIGUEZ-PALMERIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-72892.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2012.
Filed July 6, 2012.
Maria Rodriguez-Palmerin, Henderson, NV, pro se.
Jerry Wolf Stuchiner, Paladinlaw, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
Donald Anthony Couvillon, Esquire, Edward C. Durant, OIL, 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: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, 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
Maria Rodriguez-Palmerin, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings 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 due process violations. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Palmerin's motion to reopen, where she failed to show that the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel may have affected the outcome of her proceedings. See id. at 899-900 (requiring prejudice to prevail on ineffective assistance claim); see also TriasHernandez v. INS, 528 F.2d 366, 368-69 (9th Cir.1975) (Miranda warnings are not required in the deportation context).
In light of our disposition, we need not address Rodriguez-Palmerin's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.