Case Name: Juan Martinez MORALES; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-28
Citations: 302 F. App'x 550
Docket Number: No. 05-71548
Parties: Juan Martinez MORALES; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 302
Pages: 550–551

Head Matter:
Juan Martinez MORALES; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-71548.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 24, 2008.
Filed Nov. 28, 2008.
Khachik Akhkashian, for Petitioners.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the Dis trict Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, S. Nicole Nardone, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration, Lit., N.W. Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Juan Martinez Morales and family, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
We agree with the BIA's conclusion that petitioners' ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails because they did not establish that the alleged ineffective assistance may have affected the outcome of their proceedings. See id. at 899-900. Petitioners' evidence was insufficient to establish the requisite level of hardship. See id. at 902 (concluding there was no prejudice where the evidence did not establish the requisite level of hardship).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.