OSCAR ARTURO SANCHEZ HERNANDEZ and ALMA ROSA LARA BATRES 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
OSCAR ARTURO SANCHEZ
HERNANDEZ and ALMA ROSA LARA
BATRES,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71231
Agency Nos. A075-749-304
A075-749-305
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 15, 2013**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Arturo Sanchez Hernandez and Alma Rosa Lara Batres, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is
FILED
JAN 17 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-71231 2
governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel where petitioners failed to
establish prejudice. See id. at 793-94 (prejudice results when the alleged deficient
conduct “may have affected the outcome of the proceedings” (internal quotation
marks omitted)).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision declining to
exercise its sua sponte authority under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Mejia-Hernandez
v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unavailing, or not supported by the
record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --