Case ID: f-appx_229/html/0654-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hossian DAVARZAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-74801.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2007.
    
    Filed April 27, 2007.
    Shawn Sedaghat, Esq., Law Offices of Shawn Sedaghat, Encino, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      CAC-r-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District, Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Regina S. Moriarty, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hossian Davarzan, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the IJ’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion to reopen for failure to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter ofLozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988), where Davarzan did not provide an affidavit to support his claim and the ineffective assistance is not plain on the face of the record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d at 597-98.

Davarzan’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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