Jose Guadalupe Aguas Loza; Martha Martinez Contreras 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).
/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE GUADALUPE AGUAS LOZA;
MARTHA MARTINEZ CONTRERAS,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73416
Agency Nos. A079-576-790
A077-819-433
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.
Jose Guadalupe Aguas Loza and Martha Martinez Contreras, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
FILED
FEB 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

/Research 07-73416 2
denying their applications for cancellation of removal and denying their motion to
remand based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
remand, Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2003), 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’s conclusion that petitioners failed to establish that
their former counsel’s representation resulted in prejudice, and therefore their
ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails. See id. at 793 (to prevail on an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).
Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to remand.
See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (The BIA’s denial of a
motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to
law.”); Ramirez-Alejandre v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 365, 382 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Under
BIA procedure, a motion to remand must meet all of the requirements of a motion
to reopen and the two are treated the same.”).

-- 2 of 3 --

/Research 07-73416 3
In light of our disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining
contentions regarding compliance with the requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I.
& N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --