Case ID: f-appx_234/html/0592-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sony DJAJANA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-75985.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 5, 2007.
    
    Filed June 13, 2007.
    Cindy S. Chang, Law Offices of Cindy S. Chang, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Arthur L. Rabin, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Torts Branch, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sony Djajana, an Indonesian citizen of Chinese descent, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s order denying his motion to reopen proceedings due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion, see Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Djajana’s motion to reopen where he did not comply with any of the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988), see Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 598 (9th Cir.2004), and presented his claim of ineffective assistance solely through the argument of new counsel which does not constitute evidence, see Carrillo-Gonzalez v. INS, 353 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir.2003).

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