Gerardo Ortiz Cuenca; Maria Griselda Espinoza 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GERARDO ORTIZ CUENCA; MARIA
GRISELDA ESPINOZA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72393
Agency Nos. A079-280-760
A079-280-761
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.
Gerardo Ortiz Cuenca and Maria Griselda Espinoza, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
FILED
OCT 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72393 2
reopen, and review de novo constitutional claims, 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 petitioners’ February 13,
2008, motion to reopen for lack of prejudice. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d
889, 899-90 (9th Cir. 2003) (prejudice results when the performance of counsel
“was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings”)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --