
    Armando ALVAREZ-CORONA, et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 08-72268, 09-70495.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Field Oct. 25, 2010.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Barry J. Pettinato U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, 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, Armando Alvarez-Corona and his family, natives and eitizens of Mexico, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings and denying their motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen and reconsider, and review de novo claims of due process violations, including ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petitions for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen where they failed to establish that ineffective assistance of counsel may have affected the outcome of their case. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision denying their motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc).

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