
    Dilipkumar Naginbhai PATEL, a.k.a. Dilpkumar Nojinby Patel; Jayaben Ratilal Patel, a.k.a. Jiabin Rakilal Patel, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70375.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 8, 2012.
    
    Filed Aug. 15, 2012.
    Orit Levit, All Immigration Law Group, PC, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioners.
    Jonathan Aaron Robbins, Esquire, Trial, Puneet Cheema, Trial, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dilipkumar Naginbhai Patel and Jaya-ben Ratilal Patel, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. 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 due process claims. 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 did not establish that former counsel’s failure to submit evidence of lead petitioner’s political activities would have affected the outcome their proceedings. See id. at 793-94 (prejudice results when performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings).

In light of our disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining contentions.

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