Maria Socorro Gallegos Matias; Jose Jimenez Mendoza 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARIA SOCORRO GALLEGOS
MATIAS; JOSE JIMENEZ MENDOZA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70182
Agency Nos. A079-586-738
A079-586-739
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Maria Socorro Gallegos Matias and Jose Jimenez Mendoza, 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
FILED
MAY 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-70182 2
ineffective assistance of counsel. 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
claims of due process violations. 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 where they failed to establish prejudice arising from any alleged ineffective
assistance by their former counsel. See id. at 793-94 (“[P]rejudice results when the
performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of
the proceedings.” (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Petitioners’ contention that the BIA employed an incorrect standard of
review is belied by the record.
In light of our disposition, we need not address petitioners’ contention
regarding their failure to depart within the voluntary departure period.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --