Case Name: Jose Raymundo FERNANDEZ, Irma Senedrin Raymundo, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-10
Citations: 548 F. App'x 493
Docket Number: No. 10-72386
Parties: Jose Raymundo FERNANDEZ, Irma Senedrin Raymundo, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 548
Pages: 493–494

Head Matter:
Jose Raymundo FERNANDEZ, Irma Senedrin Raymundo, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-72386.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
Filed Dec. 10, 2013.
Dina Marie Sokhn, Law Office of Dina M. Sokhn, San Jose, CA, for Petitioners.
Liza Murcia, Tiffany L. Walters, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Office of the Chief Counsel Depart ment of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, 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
Jose Raymundo Fernandez and Irma Senedrin Raymundo, natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen alleging 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 de novo due process claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen where petitioners failed to establish plausible grounds for relief. Cf. Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1189 (9th Cir.2004) (presumption of prejudice arising from former attorney's failure to file an appellate brief was not rebutted where petitioner showed plausible grounds for relief).
Petitioners' contention that the BIA failed to review the new evidence accompanying their second motion to reopen is not supported by the record. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.