
    Mirna AYALA; Marco Antonio Ayala, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-76664.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 3, 2007.
    
    Filed Dec. 10, 2007.
    Ilyce Shugall, Marc Van Der Hout, Esq., Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Donald E. Keener, Esq., Bryan S. Beier, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mirna Ayala and her husband Marco Antonio Ayala, 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 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations in removal proceedings, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

We agree with the BIA’s conclusion that the performance by Petitioners’ former attorney did not result in prejudice, and thus their claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir.2003) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel’s conduct was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings).

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