
    Idania Maybeli ROSALES-PICEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72562.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted March 18, 2011.
    Filed March 25, 2011.
    Zachary Miller Nightingale, Avantika Shastri, Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    John Blakeley, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kiley L. Kane, Esquire, Trial, Kathryn Mckinney, OIL, Emily Anne Radford, 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: WALLACE, NOONAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Idania Rosales-Picen (“Rosales-Picen”) petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

We review ineffective assistance of counsel claims de novo and findings of fact regarding counsel’s performance for substantial evidence. Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1024 (9th Cir.2004). Ineffective assistance of counsel claims require a showing of prejudice to succeed. Id. Upon review of the record, we conclude that Rosales-Picen did not demonstrate prejudice arising out of prior counsel’s failure properly to investigate and present Rosales-Picen’s asylum claim based on her fear of persecution by the guerrillas in Guatemala. The new evidence RosalesPicen offered in support of her motion to reopen does not undermine the agency’s prior conclusions that (1) Rosales-Picen did not establish past persecution, and (2) Rosales-Picen failed to prove that she could not reasonably relocate to a place within Guatemala where she would be safe from the guerrillas.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that “it was not clear that a claim based on domestic violence [was] sustainable in 1999.” Accordingly, the BIA did not err when it concluded that prior counsel Miguel Gadda’s failure to present a domestic-violenee based asylum claim in 1999 did not amount to ineffective assistance.

The petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-311.
     