Case Name: Blanca Maria ROSAS-ANGELES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-02
Citations: 540 F. App'x 762
Docket Number: No. 12-71815
Parties: Blanca Maria ROSAS-ANGELES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 762–763

Head Matter:
Blanca Maria ROSAS-ANGELES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-71815.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
Filed Oct. 2, 2013.
Soheila Hosseini, Law Office of Soheila Hosseini, Laguna Hills, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Kelly J. Walls, Esquire, 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: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, 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
Blanca Maria Rosas-Angeles, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rosas-Angeles's motion to reopen where she failed to establish prejudice arising from the alleged ineffective assistance by former counsel. See id. at 793-94 ("[Prejudice results when the performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings." (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.