Case Name: Inez SANCHEZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-19
Citations: 84 F. App'x 877
Docket Number: No. 02-73925
Parties: Inez SANCHEZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 84
Pages: 877–878

Head Matter:
Inez SANCHEZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-73925.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
Decided Dec. 19, 2003.
Kevin A. Bove, Esq., Attorney at Law, Escondido, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Michael P. Lindemann, Esq., Christopher C. Fuller, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Inez Sanchez-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") dismissal of her appeal from an immigration judge's denial of her motion to reopen to seek cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.
Sanchez-Hernandez contends that the BIA abused its discretion by denying her motion to reopen because she received ineffective assistance of counsel. This contention lacks merit because withdrawing her application for cancellation of removal and accepting voluntary departure was a tactical decision, not ineffective assistance of counsel. See Magallanes-Damian v. INS, 783 F.2d 931, 934 (9th Cir.1986).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.