Case Name: Jamie Ramirez GARCIA; Leticia Chavez Herrejon, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-04
Citations: 316 F. App'x 620
Docket Number: No. 06-73820
Parties: Jamie Ramirez GARCIA; Leticia Chavez Herrejon, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 316
Pages: 620–621

Head Matter:
Jamie Ramirez GARCIA; Leticia Chavez Herrejon, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73820.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
Filed March 4, 2009.
Deniz S. Arik, Stender & Pope, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Office of the District Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Mark C. Walters, Esq., Arthur L. Rabin, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jamie Ramirez Garcia and Leticia Chavez Herrejon, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and we review de novo due process claims. Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1023 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion because they did not satisfy any of the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the alleged ineffective assistance is not "obvious and undisputed on the face of the record." Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597 (9th Cir.2004). Moreover, the BIA correctly determined that petitioners failed to demonstrate prejudice. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 901 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.