[Unpublished]
Vilma Chacon-Nunez, a citizen and native of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen her removal proceedings based on the alleged ineffective assistance of her non-attorney accredited representative.
We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of the agencys broad discretion, recognizing that motions to reopen are viewed with disfavor. See Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 240-52, 130 S.Ct. 827, 175 L.Ed.2d 694 (2010); Habchy v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 858, 861-62 (8th Cir. 2006). After careful review, we conclude the administrative record supports the BIAs conclusion that Chacon-Nunez failed to submit new evidence or otherwise show that the outcome of her immigration case might have been different but for the alleged ineffective assistance. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Ortiz-Puentes v. Holder, 662 F.3d 481, 485 (8th Cir. 2011); Obleshchenko v. Ashcroft, 392 F.3d 970, 972-73 (8th Cir. 2004). Chacon-Nunez argues her Fifth Amendment due process rights were violated because she was not represented by counsel but acknowledges we have held that there is no Fifth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel in removal proceedings. See Rafiyev v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 853, 861 (8th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
PER CURIAM.