Maria Enriqueta Villicana Pena 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).
LR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA ENRIQUETA VILLICANA
PENA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74080
Agency No. A075-697-957
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Maria Enriqueta Villicana Pena, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
FEB 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LR/Research 07-74080 2
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo claims of due
process violations, including ineffective assistance of counsel claims. 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 Villicana Pena’s motion
to reopen where she failed to establish that ineffective assistance of counsel may
have affected the outcome of her case. 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --