Case ID: f-appx_408/html/0031-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ramon Cruz REYES and Ofelia Robles Diaz, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73778.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 6, 2011.
    Sanjay Sobti, Esquire, Corona, CA, for Petitioners.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Marshall Tamor Golding, I, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ramon Cruz Reyes and Ofelia Robles Diaz, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. 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 we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion on the ground that they failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988), because petitioners did not include any evidence that they had informed the attorneys of the allegations against them, and the alleged ineffective assistance is not plain on the face of the record. See Reyes, 358 F.3d at 594, 597-99.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion on the ground that the new evidence of their youngest daughter’s health problems was untimely and did not fall within any exception to the time restrictions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3).

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.