Dilipkumar Naginbhai Patel, a.k.a. Dilpkumar Nojinby Patel 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DILIPKUMAR NAGINBHAI PATEL,
a.k.a. Dilpkumar Nojinby Patel;
JAYABEN RATILAL PATEL, a.k.a.
Jiabin Rakilal Patel,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70375
Agency Nos. A070-805-804
A070-805-805
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012**
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Dilipkumar Naginbhai Patel and Jayaben Ratilal Patel, natives and citizens
of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
FILED
AUG 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-70375 2
denying their motion to reopen. 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
due process 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’ motion to
reopen where they did not establish that former counsel’s failure to submit
evidence of lead petitioner’s political activities would have affected the outcome
their proceedings. See id. at 793-94 (prejudice results when performance of
counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the
proceedings).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --