
    Martha Angelica JACOBO-ROMAN; Oscar Sandoval Aispuro, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71081.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2011.
    
    Filed April 26, 2011.
    Martha Angelica Jacobo-Roman, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
    Oscar Sandoval Aispuro, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
    Kelly J. Walls, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Martha Angelica Jacobo-Roman and Oscar Sandoval Aispuro, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reissue the BIA’s prior order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reissue, Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir.2004); Coyt v. Holder, 593 F.3d 902, 904 n. 1 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reissue based on ineffective assistance of counsel because petitioners failed to demonstrate plausible grounds for relief. See Ray v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 582, 587 (9th Cir.2006) (where petitioner is deprived of the opportunity to present his claim due to counsel’s error, we will find that he has been denied due process if he can demonstrate “plausible grounds for relief’ on his underlying claim); see also Moreno-Morante v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2007) (United States citizen grandchildren are not qualifying relatives for cancellation of removal purposes).

Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unavailing.

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