Jorge Avila-Avila; Azucena Meza-Arciniega 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JORGE AVILA-AVILA; AZUCENA
MEZA-ARCINIEGA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72962
Agency Nos. A097-856-033
A097-856-034
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Avila-Avila and Azucena Meza-Arciniega, 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 removal proceedings based
on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
JAN 18 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72962 2
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, including
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. 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 petitioners’ motion to
reopen because they failed to establish the required 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).
Counsel’s August 30, 2010, motion to withdraw is granted.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --