
    Rosa Maria GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 07-74077, 11-72034.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Dec. 28, 2012.
    Elias Z. Shamieh, Law Offices of Sham-ieh and Ternieden, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Linda Y. Cheng, Trial, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated petitions for review, Rosa Maria Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal and denying her motion to reopen alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We dismiss the petition for review in No. 07-74077, and deny the petition for review in No. 11-72034.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Gonzalez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her qualifying relatives. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.2009). Gonzalez’s contention that the agency erred by failing to consider hardship to her eldest daughter is belied by the record.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gonzalez’s motion to reopen for failure to establish prejudice. Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793-94 (prejudice results when counsel’s actions may have affected the outcome of the proceedings).

We need not reach Gonzalez’s remaining contentions in light of these conclusions.

In No. 07-74077: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

In No. 11-72034: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     