Angelica Martinez 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANGELICA MARTINEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71015
Agency No. A077-839-539
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Angelica Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen
based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and de
FILED
JUL 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71015 2
novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Martinez’s motion to
reopen on the ground that she failed to establish prejudice. See id. at 793
(requiring prejudice to state valid claim of ineffective assistance of counsel). It
follows that the denial of Martinez’s motion to reopen did not violate due process.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due
process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --