Maria Rodriguez-Palmerin 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARIA RODRIGUEZ-PALMERIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72892
Agency No. A096-571-584
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Maria Rodriguez-Palmerin, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
FILED
JUL 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-72892 2
a motion to reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations.
Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Palmerin’s
motion to reopen, where she failed to show that the alleged ineffective assistance
of counsel may have affected the outcome of her proceedings. See id. at 899-900
(requiring prejudice to prevail on ineffective assistance claim); see also Trias-
Hernandez v. INS, 528 F.2d 366, 368-69 (9th Cir. 1975) (Miranda warnings are
not required in the deportation context).
In light of our disposition, we need not address Rodriguez-Palmerin’s
remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --