Sergio Manuel Ceballos- Pacheco, Maria Del Rosario Farfan-Ceballos 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SERGIO MANUEL CEBALLOS-
PACHECO, MARIA DEL ROSARIO
FARFAN-CEBALLOS,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74104
Agency Nos. A075-536-059
A075-536-060
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Sergio Manuel Ceballos-Pacheco and Maria Del Rosario Farfan-Ceballos,
natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
FILED
JUN 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74104 2
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen based on ineffective
assistance of counsel. 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 in immigration proceedings. 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 or violate due process by denying
petitioners’ motion to reopen on the ground that they failed to establish prejudice.
See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir. 2003) (requiring
prejudice to state valid claim of ineffective assistance of counsel). Although
petitioners allege former counsel deprived them of an opportunity to challenge the
BIA’s denial of their cancellation applications before this court, they have failed to
describe a colorable challenge to the BIA’s denial of their applications that would
establish “plausible grounds for relief.” Id. (presumption of prejudice rebutted
when petitioners do not show plausible grounds for relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --