Jose Rosas Villa; Ana Bertha Bautista Rosas Ceja v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
RB/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ROSAS VILLA; ANA BERTHA
BAUTISTA ROSAS CEJA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-75724
Agency Nos. A075-769-195
A095-190-390
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
NOV 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

RB/Research 06-75724 2
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.

-- 2 of 2 --