Rachel Erika Pizan, a.k.a. Rachel Erika Alcalde, a.k.a. Rachel Erika Bigler, a.k.a.… 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RACHEL ERIKA PIZAN, a.k.a. Rachel
Erika Alcalde, a.k.a. Rachel Erika Bigler,
a.k.a. Rachel de Alcalde, a.k.a. Rachel
Piza, a.k.a. Rachel Pizan,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72380
Agency No. A077-970-039
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Rachel Erika Pizan, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen
FILED
DEC 28 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72380 2
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400
F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Pizan’s motion to reopen
because she failed to show she was prejudiced by her counsel’s performance. See
Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir. 2003) (presumption of
prejudice rebutted where petitioner cannot establish plausible grounds for relief).
In light of our disposition, we need not address Pizan’s remaining
contentions.
We do not consider the supplemental material filed by Pizan because it is not
part of the administrative record. Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir.
2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --