Ruben Castillo-Vargas; Ana Luz Cabanas-Esteban 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
AP/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUBEN CASTILLO-VARGAS; ANA
LUZ CABANAS-ESTEBAN,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-71011
Agency Nos. A077-810-592
A077-810-593
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Ruben Castillo-Vargas and Ana Luz Cabanas-Esteban, husband and wife
and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings based
FILED
DEC 09 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AP/Research 06-71011 2
on ineffective 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, including claims of due process violations due to ineffective
assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny the petition for review.
We agree with the BIA that the performance of petitioners’ former counsel
did not result in prejudice, and thus petitioners’ claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel fails. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir. 2003)
(petitioner must show prejudice to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel
claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --