Case ID: f-appx_479/html/0130-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alejandro VARONA ALONZO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-70061.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 18, 2012.
    Alejandro Varona Alonzo, Orange, CA, pro se.
    Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esquire, Oil, 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: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alejandro Varona Alonzo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his 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, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Varona Alonzo’s motion to reopen for failure to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 687 (BIA 1988), where the ineffective assistance he alleges is not plain on the face of the record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 596-99 (9th Cir.2004).

We do not consider the extra-record evidence submitted for the first time with Varona Alonzo’s opening brief because the court’s review is limited to the administrative record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A).

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.