Case Name: Jose Rosas VILLA; Ana Bertha Bautista Rosas Ceja, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-30
Citations: 358 F. App'x 823
Docket Number: No. 06-75724
Parties: Jose Rosas VILLA; Ana Bertha Bautista Rosas Ceja, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 358
Pages: 823–824

Head Matter:
Jose Rosas VILLA; Ana Bertha Bautista Rosas Ceja, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75724.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Nov. 30, 2009.
Curtis F. Pierce, Esq., Law Offices of Curtis F. Pierce, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
CAC-District, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Carol Federighi, Esq., Gladys M. Steffens-Guzman, Esq., DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, 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
Jose Rosas Villa and Ana Bertha Bautista Rosas Ceja, 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 based on 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 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 petition for review.
We agree with the BIA's conclusion in its November 20, 2006, order that petitioners failed to present evidence that establishes prejudice, and thus their claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails. See id. at 794 (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.