Claudia Osuna-Estrada 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CLAUDIA OSUNA-ESTRADA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73155
Agency No. A076-625-542
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges
Claudia Osuna-Estrada, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen
proceedings due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen,
FILED
NOV 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-73155 2
and review de novo constitutional claims, including ineffective assistance of
counsel claims. 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 Osuna-Estrada’s March 12,
2009, motion to reopen on the ground that she failed to show she was prejudiced
by her counsel’s conduct. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899-90 (9th Cir.
2003) (prejudice results when the performance of counsel “was so inadequate that
it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings”) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --