Paulino Tapia-Ortiz; Ines Tapia 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
PAULINO TAPIA-ORTIZ; INES TAPIA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70276
Agency Nos. A075-478-839
A075-478-840
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 14, 2013**
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Paulino Tapia-Ortiz and Ines Tapia, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their
motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
AUG 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-70276 2
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 BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen because they failed to show they were prejudiced by their counsels’
performance. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir. 2003)
(presumption of prejudice rebutted where petitioner cannot establish plausible
grounds for relief).
Petitioners’ contentions that the BIA did not properly address their
ineffective assistance of counsel claim and failed to consider all the evidence
presented in their motion are not supported by the record.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --