Alfredo Cambron Vargas; Inez Enriquez Torres 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).
JT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALFREDO CAMBRON VARGAS; INEZ
ENRIQUEZ TORRES,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 06-72251
07-72950
Agency Nos. A079-595-691
A079-595-692
MEMORANDUM *
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Alfredo Cambron Vargas and Inez
Enriquez Torres, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying their two
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JT/Research 07-72950 2
motions to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen, and de novo claims of due process violations, including claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel in immigration proceedings. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petitions for review.
With respect to the BIA’s March 29, 2006 order, the BIA acted within its
broad discretion in determining that the evidence presented with petitioners’
motion to reopen was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295
F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be
reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).
With respect to the BIA’s January 30, 2006 order, the BIA acted within its
discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen alleging ineffective assistance
of counsel because petitioners presented insufficient evidence to establish
prejudice. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir. 2003) (to
prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim a petitioner must demonstrate
prejudice).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --