NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FILED
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                          JAN 23 2014

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

JOSEFINA JUAREZ VILLANUEVA,                      No. 12-71840

               Petitioner,                       Agency No. A075-643-695

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

               Respondent.


                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted January 21, 2014**

Before:        CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

       Josefina Juarez Villanueva, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her

motion to reopen proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of


          *
             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).
a motion to reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations.

Mohammed v. Gonzales, 

, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the

petition for review.

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion because Juarez

Villanueva failed to establish prejudice from the alleged ineffective assistance. See

Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 

, 826 (9th Cir. 2003) (to prevail on an

ineffective assistance of counsel claim, petitioner must demonstrate prejudice). It

follows that the BIA did not deny Juarez Villanueva due process in denying her

motion. See Lata v. INS, 

, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and

prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                          2                                   12-71840