Case ID: f-appx_397/html/0381-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Joel AGUIAR AGUILAR; Johana Guadalupe Aguiar, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 07-74210, 08-75188.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 28, 2010.
    Jose Joel Aguiar Aguilar, pro se.
    Johana Guadalupe Aguiar, pro se.
    Patrick James Glen, Oil, Jesse Lloyd Busen, James Arthur Hunolt, Emily Anne Radford, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel lee, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, 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

Jose Joel Aguiar Aguilar and Johana Guadalupe Aguiar, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying their motions to reconsider and to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petitions for review.

The BIA was within its discretion in denying petitioners’ June 25, 2007, motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s May 23, 2007, decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc).

The BIA was within its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen on the ground that they failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988), where they did not file state bar complaints or include sufficient evidence that they had informed the attorneys of the allegations against them, and the ineffective assistance is not plain on the face of the record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597-99 (9th Cir.2004).

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