Francisco Gonzalez Duenas; Lourdes Villagra De Gonzalez 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 concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO GONZALEZ DUENAS;
LOURDES VILLAGRA DE GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 07-70950
07-73412
Agency Nos. A095-188-881
A095-188-882
MEMORANDUM *
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions, Francisco Gonzalez Duenas and Lourdes
Villagra De Gonzalez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an
FILED
FEB 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

/Research 07-70073 2
immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for cancellation of
removal, and the BIA’s order denying their motion to reopen based on ineffective
assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
de novo questions of law and claims of due process violations, including those due
to ineffective assistance of counsel, and we review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th
Cir. 2005). We dismiss the petition for review in No. 07-70950, and we deny the
petition for review in No. 07-73412.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a
qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th
Cir. 2005).
We agree that petitioners failed to demonstrate that the performance of their
prior representatives resulted in prejudice, and thus their ineffective assistance of
counsel claim fails. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.
2003) (petitioner must demonstrate prejudice to prevail on an ineffective assistance
of counsel claim).

-- 2 of 3 --

/Research 07-70073 3
In light of our disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining contention.
In No. 07-70950: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
In No. 07-73412: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --