Case Name: Atm Magfoor Rahman SARKAR; 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: 2011-07-21
Citations: 444 F. App'x 207
Docket Number: No. 09-74106
Parties: Atm Magfoor Rahman SARKAR; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 444
Pages: 207–208

Head Matter:
Atm Magfoor Rahman SARKAR; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-74106.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 21, 2011.
Elsa Ines Martinez, Esquire, Law Offices of Elsa Martinez, PLC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
OIL, Dara Smith, Trial, David V. Ber-nal, Assistant Director, 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: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, 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
Atm Magfoor Rahman Sarkar and his family, natives and citizens of Bangladesh, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen removal proceed ings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. 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 by denying petitioners' motion to reopen because they presented insufficient evidence to establish prejudice from the alleged ineffective assistance of their former counsel. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003) (presumption of prejudice rebutted where petitioner has not demonstrated plausible grounds of relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.