Ana Luisa Renteria De Torres 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).
JT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANA LUISA RENTERIA DE TORRES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 07-71511
07-73325
Agency No. A077-963-531
MEMORANDUM *
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions, Ana Luisa Renteria De Torres, a native and
citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) orders denying her motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of
FILED
FEB 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JT/Research 07-73325 2
counsel and denying her motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to
reopen and to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002),
and review de novo questions of law, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-
92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petitions for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Renteria De Torres’ motion
to reopen because she presented insufficient evidence to establish prejudice. 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).
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Renteria De Torres’
motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law
in the BIA’s March 22, 2007 order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --