Maria Magdalena Sanchez Navarro 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).
LR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA MAGDALENA SANCHEZ
NAVARRO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 07-71146
07-73757
Agency No. A096-064-475
MEMORANDUM *
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Maria Magdalena Sanchez
Navarro, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

LR/Research 07-71146 2
decision denying her application for cancellation of removal and its order denying
her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact, Landin-Zavala v.
Gonzales, 488 F.3d 1150, 1151 (9th Cir. 2007), for abuse of discretion the denial
of a motion to reopen, and de novo claims of due process violations, Iturribarria v.
INS, 321F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petitions for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Sanchez
Navarro did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement where the
record indicates that Sanchez Navarro was placed in exclusion proceedings in 1994
and ordered excluded. See Landin-Zavala, 488 F.3d at 1153 (order of exclusion
terminates the accrual of physical presence); see also Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales,
485 F.3d 509, 512 (9th Cir. 2007) (expedited removal order sufficient to interrupt
an alien’s continuous physical presence).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sanchez Navarro’s motion
to reopen where Sanchez Navarro failed to establish that ineffective assistance of
counsel may have affected the outcome of her case. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft,
339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir. 2003) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice). It follows that the denial
of Sanchez Navarro’s motion to reopen did not violate due process. See Lata v.

-- 2 of 3 --

LR/Research 07-71146 3
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process
violation).
Sanchez Navarro’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --