
    Maria Del Rio Rocio JIMINEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General and Laura Duffy, U.S. Attorney, Southern District, San Diego, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 11-56605.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 1, 2013.
    John E. Ricci, Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Samuel William Bettwy, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, 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 Del Rio Rocio Jiminez appeals from the district court’s judgment denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.

Jiminez challenges her 2009 guilty-plea conviction on the ground that counsel was ineffective by failing to inform her of the possible immigration consequences of her plea, as required under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010). However, because Jiminez’s conviction became final before the Supreme Court decided Padilla, she cannot rely on that case to establish that counsel performed deficiently. See Chaidez v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1103, 1113, 185 L.Ed.2d 149 (2013) (holding that Padilla does not apply retroactively). Moreover, Jiminez cannot demonstrate prejudice because she was informed of the possible immigration consequences by the plea agreement and at the plea colloquy. See Lafler v. Cooper, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 1384, 182 L.Ed.2d 398 (2012) (to establish prejudice, “a defendant must show the outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent advice”).

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