Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

365 F. App'x 895

Cisneros v. Holder

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided February 22, 2010

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2010-02-22

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

Relies on Mohammed v. Gonzales · Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft

Decided 2010-02-22

¶1 MEMORANDUM

¶2 Juan Robles Cisneros and Sonia Ruth Zamora De La 0, natives and citizens of Guatemala, 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 a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

¶3 . The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed eleven months after the BIA’s February 14, 2006 order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish that any of the regulatory exceptions apply, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4). Nor have petitioners established prejudice to support their claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 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).

¶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.

/365/fappx/895 · .json · Public domain