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)
11-72514•Jorge Perez Tolentino; Beatriz Arauza Perez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
11-72514Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAug 16, 2013
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JORGE PEREZ TOLENTINO; BEATRIZ
ARAUZA PEREZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72514
Agency Nos. A075-725-871
A075-725-872
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 14, 2013**
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Perez Tolentino and Beatriz Arauza Perez, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective
FILED
AUG 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
11-72514 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 questions
of law. 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 failed to establish prejudice arising from the alleged ineffective
assistance by their former counsel. See id. at 793-94 (“[P]rejudice results when the
performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of
the proceedings.” (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
It follows that petitioners’ due process claim, which rests entirely on the
failure to reopen, fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.