Tsisana Mikia 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
TSISANA MIKIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-75123
Agency No. A075-709-639
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Tsisana Mikia, a native and citizen of Georgia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
OCT 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-75123 2
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d
889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mikia’s motion to reopen
where Mikia failed to demonstrate prejudice. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339
F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir. 2003) (to prevail on ineffective assistance of counsel claim,
alien must demonstrate prejudice); see also Malhi v. v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 994 (9th
Cir. 2003) (motion must present clear and convincing evidence indicating strong
likelihood of bona fide marriage).
To the extent Mikia contends that the BIA failed to consider some or all of
the evidence she submitted with the motion to reopen, she has not overcome the
presumption that the BIA did review the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439
F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --