Case Name: Faviola AMANTE-DIAZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-17
Citations: 167 F. App'x 669
Docket Number: No. 04-76074
Parties: Faviola AMANTE-DIAZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 167
Pages: 669–670

Head Matter:
Faviola AMANTE-DIAZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-76074.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.
Decided Feb. 17, 2006.
Faviola Amante-Diaz, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Hillel Smith Fax, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Faviola Amante-Diaz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance without opinion of an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings, in which she alleges ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1187 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc), we deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion in concluding that Amante-Diaz "failed to present any evidence that [s]he was prejudiced by the legal representation by La Guadalupana." The letter Amante-Diaz submitted from the Orange County District Attorney's office concerning its investigation of La Guadalupana does not establish that Amante-Diaz received any ineffective assistance of counsel, or that the outcome of her proceedings may have been affected. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 824-26 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.