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:T421,MEMORANDUM ** Aurora Carolina Vazquez-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review. We agree with the BIA that Vazquez-Mendoza failed to show she was prejudiced by her former representative’s performance. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003) (presumption of prejudice rebutted where alien could not demonstrate plausible grounds for relief). Vazquez-Mendoza’s contention that the BIA utilized the incorrect prejudice standard is unavailing. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T441,

MEMORANDUM **

Aurora Carolina Vazquez-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

We agree with the BIA that Vazquez-Mendoza failed to show she was prejudiced by her former representative’s performance. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003) (presumption of prejudice rebutted where alien could not demonstrate plausible grounds for relief).

Vazquez-Mendoza’s contention that the BIA utilized the incorrect prejudice standard is unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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