Case ID: f-appx_329/html/0154-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SHIDONG NI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71138.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 14, 2009.
    
    Filed July 22, 2009.
    Shedong Ni, Wong & Partners, New York, NY, pro se.
    
      Tina Howe, Wong & Partners, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, James A. Hu-nolt, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Shidong Ni, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir.2004), and review de novo claims of due process violations, Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006). We deny in the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ni’s motion to reopen claiming ineffective assistance of counsel because Ni did not satisfy the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the alleged ineffective assistance is not “obvious and undisputed on the face of the record.” See Reyes, 358 F.3d at 597. It follows that Ni has not shown a due process violation. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).

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