Case ID: f-appx_616/html/0350-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Medardo Aristides RIVAS-CAMPOS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70374.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 28, 2015.
    Peter A. Hosharian, Esquire, Law Offices of Peter A. Hosharian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
    Yedidya Cohen, Trial, OIL, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jennifer Paisner Williams, DOJ-U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Medardo Aristides Rivas-Campos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rivas-Campos’s motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed over 90 days after the agency’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), Rivas-Campos failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Matter of Lazada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the alleged ineffective assistance was not plain on the face of the administrative record, see Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 596-99 (9th Cir.2004) (no abuse of discretion in denying motion to reopen where alien failed to comply with Lozada and ineffectiveness was not plain on the face of the record).

We do not consider Rivas-Campos’s unexhausted contention that he has now substantially complied with the procedural requirements of Lozada. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc) (the court’s review is limited to the administrative record); Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).

In light of this disposition, we need not reach Rivas-Campos’s remaining contentions.

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