Case Name: Blas CASTILLO-TAPIA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-17
Citations: 479 F. App'x 110
Docket Number: No. 10-73313
Parties: Blas CASTILLO-TAPIA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 110–111

Head Matter:
Blas CASTILLO-TAPIA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73313.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 17, 2012.
Blas Castillo-Tapia, Huntington Beach, CA, pro se.
Maria Del Carmen Lopez, Huntington Beach, CA, pro se.
Eymard Roman Castillo, Huntington Beach, CA, pro se.
OIL, Laura Halliday Hickein, DOJ-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: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Blas Castillo-Tapia, Maria Del Carmen Lopez, and Eymard Roman Castillo petition pro se 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 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 petitioners' motion to reopen on the ground that petitioners failed to establish that the actions of their former representatives may have affected the agency's hardship determination. See id. at 793-94 (a petitioner must establish prejudice to prevail on an ineffective assistance claim).
In light of our disposition, we need not address petitioners' 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.