Ruben Oscar Rivera; Sonia Rivera 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RUBEN OSCAR RIVERA; SONIA
RIVERA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70161
Agency Nos. A099-417-832
A099-417-833
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 10, 2013**
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Ruben Oscar Rivera and Sonia Rivera, 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 ineffective assistance of
FILED
JUN 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-70161 2
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 questions of law.
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)); see
also Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004), amended by
404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2005) (order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --