LETICIA LOPEZ-GUTIERREZ V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-73712 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOV 26 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LETICIA LOPEZ-GUTIERREZ; et al., Petitioners, No. 10-73712 Agency Nos. A099-057-763 Agency Nos. A099-057-764 Agency Nos. A099-057-765 v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 18, 2014** Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Leticia Lopez-Gutierrez, Ana Brigite Lopez-Lopez, and Angel Max LopezLopez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. * 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). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and we review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to reopen where they failed to establish prejudice arising from any alleged ineffective assistance by their former attorney. 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 failed to exhaust their contention regarding their former attorney’s failure to advise them of the possibility of applying for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010). We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contentions regarding the BIA’s 2009 dismissal of their appeal and denial of their motion to remand because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 10-73712
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
