Elizabeth Espinoza Ytac 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ELIZABETH ESPINOZA YTAC,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70148
Agency No. A088-220-402
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Elizabeth Espinoza Ytac, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
her appeal from an immigration judge’s (”IJ”) decision denying her motion to
reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
SEP 18 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-70148 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d
785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Espinoza Ytac’s motion
to reopen for lack of prejudice resulting from her former counsel’s failure to
inform the IJ that she planned to marry a United States citizen and failure to seek a
continuance, where Espinoza Ytac concedes that she was not eligible for
adjustment of status at the time of her hearing. See id. at 794 (prejudice results
when counsel’s actions may have affected the outcome of the proceedings). In
light of the foregoing, we need not address Espinoza Ytac’s contentions concerning
her compliance with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988).
The BIA correctly concluded that Espinoza Ytac did not state a cognizable
ineffective assistance claim based on former counsel’s actions leading to her
placement in removal proceedings. See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968,
974 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Removal proceedings do not become constitutionally unfair
simply because they are precipitated in part by an attorney’s advice . . . , or because
the illegal alien might believe that he could avoid detection until eligible for
another form of relief.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --