Armando Alvarez-Corona 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ARMANDO ALVAREZ-CORONA, et al.
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 08-72268
09-70495
Agency Nos. A075-731-667
A075-731-668
A075-731-669
A075-731-670
MEMORANDUM*
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions, Armando Alvarez-Corona and his family,
natives and citizens of Mexico, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) orders denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings and denying
FILED
OCT 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72268 2
their motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen and reconsider, 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 petitions for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen where they failed to establish that ineffective assistance of counsel may
have affected the outcome of their 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).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the
BIA’s prior decision denying their motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1);
Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --