Rodolfo Rico-Briseno; Maria Guadalupe Camberoz- Hernandez 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).
LA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODOLFO RICO-BRISENO; MARIA
GUADALUPE CAMBEROZ-
HERNANDEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 07-70958
07-74213
Agency Nos. A075-680-585
A075-680-586
MEMORANDUM *
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Rodolfo Rico-Briseno and Maria
Guadalupe Camberoz-Hernandez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for
FILED
JAN 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LA/Research 07-70958 2
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their motion to
terminate proceedings, and the BIA’s order denying their motion to reopen. 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 questions of law and claims of
constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321
F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petitions for review.
The IJ did not violate due process in denying the motion to terminate
because petitioners were properly served with their Notices to Appear, appeared at
their hearings, and failed to demonstrate prejudice. See Khan v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d
825, 828 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that neither the INA nor “its implementing
regulations require that the INS provide those notices in any language other than
English.”).
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen because petitioners failed to establish prejudice by the alleged errors of
their counsel or Bell Services. 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 --