Salvador Vargas Trejo; Graciela Palacios Soto 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SALVADOR VARGAS TREJO;
GRACIELA PALACIOS SOTO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73146
Agency Nos. A073-930-547
A075-665-446
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Salvador Vargas Trejo and Graciela Palacios Soto, 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 based on ineffective
assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
SEP 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-73146 2
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and de novo claims of due
process violations in immigration proceedings, including claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
We agree with the BIA’s conclusion that petitioners failed to establish that
former counsel’s performance resulted in prejudice, and thus their claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel fails. Id. at 793-94 (to demonstrate prejudice,
alien must establish that counsel’s performance may have affected the outcome of
the proceedings).
We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contention that former counsel
and unnamed notaries defrauded them by filing fruitless motions before the agency
because petitioners failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed to
exhaust their administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678
(9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions
not raised before the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --