
    Maria Evangelina ALVARES, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-70292.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 15, 2004.
    
    Decided June 25, 2004.
    Maria Evangelina Alvares, Northridge, CA, pro se.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michele Y.F. Sarko, Attorney, M. Jocelyn Wright, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Michele Y.F. Sarko, Attorney, M. Jocelyn Wright, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria Evangelina Alvares, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

Alvares contends that she did not receive effective assistance of counsel in the pursuit of her application for cancellation of removal. We conclude, however, that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Alvares failed to show prejudice because she failed to establish that her United States citizen children would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship should she be removed. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899-903 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     