Case Name: Alfredo Cambron VARGAS; Inez Enriquez Torres, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-14
Citations: 357 F. App'x 935
Docket Number: Nos. 06-72251, 07-72950
Parties: Alfredo Cambron VARGAS; Inez Enriquez Torres, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 357
Pages: 935–935

Head Matter:
Alfredo Cambron VARGAS; Inez Enriquez Torres, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 06-72251, 07-72950.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
Charles E. Nichol, Law Offices of Charles E. Nichol, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Joanne E. Johnson, Julia Tyler, Shelley R. Goad, Barry J. Pettinato, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In these consolidated petitions for review, Alfredo Cambrón Vargas and Inez Enriquez Torres, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") orders denying their two motions to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and de novo claims of due process violations, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in immigration proceedings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petitions for review.
With respect to the BIA's March 29, 2006 order, the BIA acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence presented with petitioners' motion to reopen was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (BIA's denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is "arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law").
With respect to the BIA's January 30, 2006 order, the BIA acted within its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reopen alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because petitioners presented insufficient evidence to establish prejudice. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.