Case Name: Bernardo Durango ALVAREZ; Rafaela Luna Mendoza, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-30
Citations: 276 F. App'x 589
Docket Number: No. 04-72848
Parties: Bernardo Durango ALVAREZ; Rafaela Luna Mendoza, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 276
Pages: 589–589

Head Matter:
Bernardo Durango ALVAREZ; Rafaela Luna Mendoza, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-72848.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 22, 2008.
Filed April 30, 2008.
Victor D. Nieblas Pradis, for Petitioners.
CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Kathleen J. Kelly, Jonathan F. Potter, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Bernardo Durango Alvarez and Rafaela Luna Mendoza, married natives and citizens of Mexico, petition 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 de novo claims of due process violations in removal proceedings, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.
We agree with the BIA's conclusion that former counsel's performance did not result in prejudice to petitioners, and thus them claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir.2003) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel's conduct was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings).
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.