Case Name: Leticia NOVERON DE SALGADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-26
Citations: 551 F. App'x 292
Docket Number: No. 12-73739
Parties: Leticia NOVERON DE SALGADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 551
Pages: 292–292

Head Matter:
Leticia NOVERON DE SALGADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-73739.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
Filed Dec. 26, 2013.
Leticia Noveron De Salgado, Riverside, CA, pro se.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips, Esquire, Trial, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, 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
Leticia Noveron De Salgado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se 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 questions of law. 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 Noveron De Salgado's motion to reopen where she failed to establish prejudice arising from any alleged ineffective assistance by her former counsel. See id. at 793-94 ("[Pjrejudice results when the performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings.").
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Noveron De Salgado'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.