Ceballos-Pacheco v. Holder , 382 F. App'x 580 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           JUN 07 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    SERGIO MANUEL CEBALLOS-                          No. 07-74104
    PACHECO, MARIA DEL ROSARIO
    FARFAN-CEBALLOS,                                 Agency Nos. A075-536-059
    A075-536-060
    Petitioners,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted May 25, 2010 **
    Before:        CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    Sergio Manuel Ceballos-Pacheco and Maria Del Rosario Farfan-Ceballos,
    natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
    *
    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).
    Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen based on 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 de novo claims of due
    process violations in immigration proceedings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 
    400 F.3d 785
    , 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
    The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process by denying
    petitioners’ motion to reopen on the ground that they failed to establish prejudice.
    See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 
    339 F.3d 814
    , 826 (9th Cir. 2003) (requiring
    prejudice to state valid claim of ineffective assistance of counsel). Although
    petitioners allege former counsel deprived them of an opportunity to challenge the
    BIA’s denial of their cancellation applications before this court, they have failed to
    describe a colorable challenge to the BIA’s denial of their applications that would
    establish “plausible grounds for relief.” 
    Id.
     (presumption of prejudice rebutted
    when petitioners do not show plausible grounds for relief).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                     07-74104
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-74104

Citation Numbers: 382 F. App'x 580

Judges: Canby, Thomas, Fletcher

Filed Date: 6/7/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024