Case Name: Violeta Clotilde ARTETA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-02
Citations: 417 F. App'x 679
Docket Number: No. 09-72144
Parties: Violeta Clotilde ARTETA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 417
Pages: 679–680

Head Matter:
Violeta Clotilde ARTETA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72144.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed March 2, 2011.
Neda A. Zaman, Esquire, Law Offices of Neda Zaman, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Genevieve Holm, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District 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
Violeta Clotilde Arteta, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her 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 for substantial evidence findings of fact regarding counsel's performance, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Arteta's motion to reopen because she did not establish that her former counsel "failed to perform with sufficient competence." Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by it crediting Arteta's former counsel's statement that she informed Arteta about the BIA's denial of her appeal over Arteta's unsworn statement to the contrary. See INS v. Wang, 450 U.S. 139, 142-44, 101 S.Ct. 1027, 67 L.Ed.2d 123 (1981) (agency did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to reopen where it declined to credit unsworn allegations that were eonclusory and unbelievable); cf. Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 989-90 (9th Cir. 2007) (agency abused discretion in denying motion to rescind in absentia removal order when it required sworn affidavit from pro se alien who presented plausible alle gations); Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 999 (9th Cir.2007) (agency required to accept as true the allegations in petitioner's sworn affidavit where it did not find the allegations to be inherently unbelievable).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.