Case Name: Juana Ines SALAZAR-ARMENTA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-15
Citations: 485 F. App'x 868
Docket Number: No. 11-70389
Parties: Juana Ines SALAZAR-ARMENTA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 485
Pages: 868–869

Head Matter:
Juana Ines SALAZAR-ARMENTA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-70389.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
Filed Oct. 15, 2012.
Hector Ricardo Ortega, Ortega, Canossa & Associates, PLC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Suzanne Nardone, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Juana Ines Salazar-Armenta, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal's ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Salazar-Armenta's motion to reopen for failure to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), where the ineffective assistance she alleges is not plain on the face of the record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 596-99 (9th Cir.2004).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.