Case Name: Emeteria J. RAMIREZ-MEDRANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-21
Citations: 362 F. App'x 819
Docket Number: No. 07-70884
Parties: Emeteria J. RAMIREZ-MEDRANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 819–820

Head Matter:
Emeteria J. RAMIREZ-MEDRANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70884.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 21, 2010.
James T. Stroud, Esq., Stroud & Do, Van Nuys, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, CAS-District, I & AMP; NS, San Diego, CA, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, 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
Emeteria J. Ramirez-Medrano, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
We agree with the BIA that Ramirez-Medrano failed to show that she was prejudiced by her former counsel's performance. See Blanco v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 714, 722 (9th Cir.2008) (no prejudice from counsel's failure to call a witness because additional testimony would not have likely changed the outcome); see also Ortiz v. INS, 179 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir.1999) (attorney's failure to elicit critical testimony regarding petitioner's asylum claim was insufficient to establish prejudice).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.