Martha Jacobo-Roman v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 26 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTHA ANGELICA JACOBO- No. 09-71081
ROMAN; OSCAR SANDOVAL
AISPURO, Agency Nos. A095-314-829
A095-314-830
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2011 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Martha Angelica Jacobo-Roman and Oscar Sandoval Aispuro, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reissue the BIA’s prior order. We
*
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).
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to reissue, Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir. 2004);
Coyt v. Holder, 593 F.3d 902, 904 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reissue based on ineffective assistance of counsel because petitioners failed to
demonstrate plausible grounds for relief. See Ray v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 582, 587
(9th Cir. 2006) (where petitioner is deprived of the opportunity to present his claim
due to counsel’s error, we will find that he has been denied due process if he can
demonstrate “plausible grounds for relief” on his underlying claim); see also
Moreno-Morante v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2007) (United States
citizen grandchildren are not qualifying relatives for cancellation of removal
purposes).
Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-71081