Jose Francisco Yanez Lopez; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSE FRANCISCO YANEZ LOPEZ; et
al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72387
Agency Nos. A095-200-552
A095-200-553
A095-200-554
A095-200-555
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Francisco Yanez Lopez and family, natives and citizens of Mexico,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
their motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Mohammed v.
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72387 2
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reconsider because petitioners failed to demonstrate an error in the BIA’s prior
conclusion that petitioenrs were prejudiced by prior counsels’ representation. See
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (motion shall identify an error of fact or law in the BIA’s
prior decision); see also Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th
Cir.2003) (petitioner must demonstrate prejudice to prevail on an ineffective
assistance of counsel claim).
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ claim that the BIA failed to
consider all of the evidence because they did not exhaust this claim before the BIA.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --