Case ID: f-appx_555/html/0739-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Leydi MANCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-73336.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2014.
    Ramin Ghashghaei, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Suzanne Nardone, Oil, 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: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Leydi Mancia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 985 (9th Cir.2007). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Mancia’s motion to reopen where she failed to overcome the presumption of effective delivery of her notice of hearing, see id. at 986-88, and failed to establish that the alleged ineffective assistance of an immigration consultant constituted an exceptional circumstance warranting rescission of her in absentia removal order, cf. Monjaraz-Munoz v. INS, 327 F.3d 892, 896 (9th Cir.2003) (petitioner must show the alleged ineffective assistance was the cause of her failure to appear for her hearing).

The agency also did not abuse its discretion in denying Mancia’s motion to reopen based on the alleged ineffective assistance of her two former attorneys where she failed to comply with the threshold requirements of Matter of hozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and she does not contend that the alleged ineffective assistance was “plain on the face of the administrative record.” See Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518, 525 (9th Cir.2000).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).