
    Paramjit KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71130.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2014.
    
    Filed Aug. 15, 2014.
    Sok-Khieng K. Lim, Esquire, Davies & Pearson, Tacoma, WA, for Petitioner.
    Janette L. Allen, Esquire, 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: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Paramjit Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kaur’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance where Kaur failed to establish prejudice arising from any alleged ineffective assistance from her three former attorneys. See Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897-903; Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 973-976 (9th Cir.2004) (amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005)) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, petitioner must demonstrate prejudice resulting from the ineffective assistance).

Kaur failed to exhaust her contention regarding, waiver of the right to counsel. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Kaur’s remaining contentions. See Mendez-Alcaraz v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 842, 844 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     