22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T48d,MEMORANDUM Maria Rodriguez-Palmerin, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 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 review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Palmerin’s motion to reopen, where she failed to show that the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel may have affected the outcome of her proceedings. See id. at 899-900 (requiring prejudice to prevail on ineffective assistance claim); see also TriasHernandez v. INS, 528 F.2d 366, 368-69 (9th Cir.1975) (Miranda warnings are not required in the deportation context). In light of our disposition, we need not address Rodriguez-Palmerin’s remaining contentions. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4bf,

MEMORANDUM

Maria Rodriguez-Palmerin, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 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 review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo claims of due process violations. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Palmerin’s motion to reopen, where she failed to show that the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel may have affected the outcome of her proceedings. See id. at 899-900 (requiring prejudice to prevail on ineffective assistance claim); see also TriasHernandez v. INS, 528 F.2d 366, 368-69 (9th Cir.1975) (Miranda warnings are not required in the deportation context).

In light of our disposition, we need not address Rodriguez-Palmerin’s 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.