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:T494,MEMORANDUM ** Celia Veronica Secaida Chinchilla, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of *243 counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and de novo claims of due process violations, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in immigration proceedings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review. We agree -with the BIA’s conclusion in its August 1, 2006, order that Secaida Chinchilla presented insufficient evidence to establish prejudice, and thus her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice). Secaida Chinchilla’s remaining due process contention is unpersuasive. 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:T4b4,

MEMORANDUM **

Celia Veronica Secaida Chinchilla, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of *243 counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and de novo claims of due process violations, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in immigration proceedings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

We agree -with the BIA’s conclusion in its August 1, 2006, order that Secaida Chinchilla presented insufficient evidence to establish prejudice, and thus her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).

Secaida Chinchilla’s remaining due process contention is unpersuasive.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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