The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
10-71722•Juan Marin Colchado; Susana Marin v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
10-71722Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApr 19, 2012
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JUAN MARIN COLCHADO; SUSANA
MARIN,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71722
Agency Nos. A095-002-041
A095-002-042
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Juan Marin Colchado and Susana Marin, natives and citizens of Mexico,
petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective
FILED
APR 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
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 review de novo claims of
due process violations. 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’ motion to
reopen. Petitioners’ evidence is not sufficient to show that the alleged ineffective
assistance of counsel may have affected the outcome of their proceedings. See
Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 901-02 (9th Cir. 2003) (requiring prejudice to
prevail on ineffective assistance claim). In addition, petitioners cannot establish
ineffective assistance based on the actions leading to the institution of their
removal proceedings. See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 973-75 (9th Cir.
2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2005) (no ineffective assistance where
representative’s incorrect advice led to issuance of Notice to Appear and petitioner
was ineligible for relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.