Antonio Silva Martinez; Maria Luisa Silva 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).
LA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTONIO SILVA MARTINEZ; MARIA
LUISA SILVA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70164
Agency Nos. A096-052-416
A096-052-417
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.
Antonio Silva Martinez and Maria Luisa Silva, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order denying their motion to reopen proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8
FILED
DEC 07 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LA/Research 07-70164 2
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motion to reopen,
Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002), and we review de novo claims
of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510,
516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioners’ motion to
reopen because the petitioners failed to establish that the alleged ineffective
assistance of a notario may have affected the outcome of their proceedings. See
Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 855, 858 (9th Cir. 2004) (to establish
ineffective assistance of counsel constituting a due process violation, petitioners
must demonstrate that they were prejudiced by their counsel’s performance).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --