Case Name: Luz Maria ESPINOZA MOSQUEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-29
Citations: 425 F. App'x 563
Docket Number: No. 09-71424
Parties: Luz Maria ESPINOZA MOSQUEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 425
Pages: 563–563

Head Matter:
Luz Maria ESPINOZA MOSQUEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71424.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 29, 2011.
Tucker Sandler, Law Offices of Tucker H. Sandler, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Puneet Cheema, Trial, Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Theo Nickerson, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, 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
Luz Mdria Espinoza Mosqueda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Espinoza Mosqueda's motion to reopen on the ground that she failed to establish prejudice from the alleged ineffective assistance. See id. at 899-900 (prejudice results when the performance of counsel "was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
In light of our disposition, we do not address Espinoza Mosqueda's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.