Case Name: Ricardo Pilar GUTIERREZ, Norma Gutierrez and Damian Gutierrez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-06
Citations: 409 F. App'x 126
Docket Number: No. 08-73713
Parties: Ricardo Pilar GUTIERREZ, Norma Gutierrez and Damian Gutierrez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 409
Pages: 126–127

Head Matter:
Ricardo Pilar GUTIERREZ, Norma Gutierrez and Damian Gutierrez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73713.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2010.
Filed Dec. 6, 2010.
Ricardo Pilar Gutierrez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
OIL, Daniel I. Smulow, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. [ AXXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXXX-XXX-XXX ].
Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, 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
Ricardo Pilar Gutierrez, Norma Gutierrez, and Damian Gutierrez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") removal order and denying their motion to remand 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 continuance, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam), and denial of a motion to remand, Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying a continuance where petitioners failed to demonstrate good cause to justify a fourth continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to remand where they failed to establish that former counsel's failure to submit documents regarding the educational system in Mexico may have affected the outcome of their case. See Rojas-Garcia, v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.