Emeteria J. Ramirez-Medrano 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).
KS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EMETERIA J. RAMIREZ-MEDRANO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70884
Agency No. A090-793-537
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Emeteria J. Ramirez-Medrano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant
FILED
JAN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KS/Research 07-70884 2
to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration
proceedings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We
deny the petition for review.
We agree with the BIA that Ramirez-Medrano failed to show that she was
prejudiced by her former counsel’s performance. See Blanco v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d
714, 722 (9th Cir. 2008) (no prejudice from counsel’s failure to call a witness
because additional testimony would not have likely changed the outcome); see also
Ortiz v. INS, 179 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 1999) (attorney’s failure to elicit
critical testimony regarding petitioner’s asylum claim was insufficient to establish
prejudice).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --