Gabriela Galvez De Ramirez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GABRIELA GALVEZ DE RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74343
Agency No. A079-520-744
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Gabriela Galvez De Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her
motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d
FILED
MAY 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-74343 2
889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to
reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner’s evidence is not
sufficient to show that the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel may have
affected the outcome of the proceedings. See id. at 901-02 (requiring prejudice to
prevail on ineffective assistance claim). In addition, petitioner cannot establish
ineffective assistance based on the actions leading to the institution of her removal
proceedings. See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 973-75 (9th Cir. 2004),
amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2005) (no ineffective assistance where
representative’s incorrect advice led to issuance of Notice to Appear and petitioner
was ineligible for relief).
The BIA’s denial of petitioner’s motion to reopen based on changed country
conditions was not an abuse of discretion because petitioner did not establish prima
facie eligibility for relief. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.
2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief warranting
reopening based on changed country conditions).
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s contention that she and her
children are eligible for asylum and withholding of removal as members of a

-- 2 of 3 --

08-74343 3
particular social group of “Mexicans who have come from the United States who
are targeted as victims of violent crimes” because she did not raise this claim to the
BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court
lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --