Case Name: Norma Rico RANGEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-25
Citations: 474 F. App'x 721
Docket Number: Nos. 09-72009, 10-70264
Parties: Norma Rico RANGEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 721–722

Head Matter:
Norma Rico RANGEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 09-72009, 10-70264.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2012.
Filed July 25, 2012.
Leticia Torres Moreno, Law Offices of Leticia T. Moreno, APC, Commerce, CA, for Petitioner.
Juria L. Jones, Don George Scroggin, Esquire, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of The Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, 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
In these consolidated petitions for review, Norma Rico Rangel, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") orders denying her motions to reopen and reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider, and review de novo due process claims. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review in No. 10-70264, and dismiss the petition for review in No. 09-72009.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rico Rangel's motion to reconsider for failure to establish prejudice from the alleged ineffective assistance of her former counsel. See id. at 899 (requiring prejudice to prevail in a due process claim).
In light of our disposition, we dismiss the petition for review concerning the underlying motion to reopen as moot.
In No. 09-72009: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
In No. 10-70264: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.