
    Juan Marin COLCHADO; Susana Marin, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71722.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 17, 2012.
    
    Filed April 19, 2012.
    Daniel Patrick Hanlon, Hanlon Law Group, A Professional Law Corporation, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioners.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Richard Zanfardino, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, 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

Juan Marin Colchado and Susana Marin, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se 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 under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations. 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. Petitioners’ evidence is not sufficient to show that the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel may have affected the outcome of their proceedings. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 901-02 (9th Cir.2003) (requiring prejudice to prevail on ineffective assistance claim). In addition, petitioners cannot establish ineffective assistance based on the actions leading to the institution of their removal proceedings. See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 973-75 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (no ineffective assistance where representative’s incorrect advice led to issuance of Notice to Appear and petitioner was ineligible for relief).

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