Case ID: f-appx_475/html/0258-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hermilo MORENO-LICONAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72968.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 8, 2012.
    
    Filed Aug. 15, 2012.
    Hermilo Moreno-Liconar, Garden Grove, CA, pro se.
    Bernard Joseph, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hermilo Moreno-Liconar, 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 removal proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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). We deny in part and dismiss in part the .petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Moreno-Liconar’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 was not plain on the face of the record. See Reyes, 358 F.3d at 597-99.

We lack jurisdiction to review Moreno-Liconar’s contention regarding the transcript from his removal hearing because he failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).

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