Vasquez-Pena v. Holder

357 F. App'x 838
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided December 7, 2009·No. 07-70501·Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Antonio Silva Martinez and Maria Luisa Silva, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motion to reopen, Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002), and we review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioners’ motion to reopen because the petitioners failed to establish that the alleged ineffective assistance of a notario may have affected the outcome of their proceedings. See Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 855, 858 (9th Cir.2004) (to establish ineffective assistance of counsel constituting a due process violation, petitioners must demonstrate that they were prejudiced by their counsel’s performance).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Vasquez-Pena v. Holder, 357 F. App'x 838 (9th Cir. 2009).

357 F. App'x 838 (Vasquez-Pena v. Holder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related