Juan Robles Cisneros; Sonia Ruth Zamora De La O 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).
LA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN ROBLES CISNEROS; SONIA
RUTH ZAMORA DE LA O,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72594
Agency Nos. A075-744-014
A075-744-013
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Juan Robles Cisneros and Sonia Ruth Zamora De La O, natives and citizens
of Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen proceedings. We have jurisdiction
FILED
FEB 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LA/Research 07-72594 2
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.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen as
untimely because it was filed eleven months after the BIA’s February 14, 2006
order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish that any of the
regulatory exceptions apply, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4). Nor have petitioners
established prejudice to support their claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --