Case Name: Genoveva Martinez RIOS and Agustin Armenia Martinez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-28
Citations: 441 F. App'x 409
Docket Number: No. 09-74027
Parties: Genoveva Martinez RIOS and Agustin Armenia Martinez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 441
Pages: 409–410

Head Matter:
Genoveva Martinez RIOS and Agustin Armenia Martinez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-74027.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 28, 2011.
Leticia Torres Moreno, Law Offices of Leticia T. Moreno, APC, Commerce, CA, for Petitioners.
ADA Elsie Bosque, Trial, Rebecca Ariel Hoffberg, Esquire, Trial, OIL, DOJ — 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: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, 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
Genoveva Martinez Rios and Agustín Armenia Martinez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims, and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. 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 petitioners' motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel because petitioners did not demonstrate that their prior counsel failed to perform with sufficient competence. Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 855, 858 (9th Cir.2004). Petitioners' contention that the BIA failed to make a finding regarding counsels' competence is unsupported by the record.
In light of our disposition, we need not reach petitioners' 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.