Case Name: Ana Elizabeth VELASCO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-15
Citations: 421 F. App'x 744
Docket Number: No. 08-75143
Parties: Ana Elizabeth VELASCO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 421
Pages: 744–744

Head Matter:
Ana Elizabeth VELASCO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-75143.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed March 15, 2011.
Leticia Torres Moreno, Law Offices of Leticia T. Moreno, APC, Commerce, CA, for Petitioner.
John Beadle Holt, Esquire, Trial, Oil, Blair O’Connor, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. 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
Ana Elizabeth Velasco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen. 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 due process claims. 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 Velasco's motion to reopen for failure to show prejudice. See id. at 793-94 (prejudice results when "the performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings.") (emphasis in original).
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.