Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

357 F. App'x 838

Vasquez-Pena v. Holder

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided December 7, 2009

This page is marked noindex.

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2009-12-07

Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Anant Ram v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Singh v. Immigration & Naturalization Services · Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft

Decided 2009-12-07

¶1 MEMORANDUM …

¶2 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.

¶3 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).

¶4 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

…

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

/357/fappx/838 · .json · Public domain