
    Maria Socorro Gallegos MATIAS; Jose Jimenez Mendoza, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70182.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 14, 2013.
    
    Filed May 22, 2013.
    Andrew Taylor, Attorney at Law San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Sabatino F. Leo, Trial, OIL, Joanna L. Watson, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria Socorro Gallegos Matías and Jose Jimenez Mendoza, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal 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 a motion to reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen where they failed to establish prejudice arising from any alleged ineffective assistance by their former counsel. See id. at 793-94 (“[Prejudice results when the performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings.” (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Petitioners’ contention that the BIA employed an incorrect standard of review is belied by the record.

In light of our disposition, we need not address petitioners’ contention regarding their failure to depart within the voluntary departure period.

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.
     