Case Name: Juan Carlos BARRAZA-SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Juan Carlos Barraza, a.k.a. Juan Carlos Sanchez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-31
Citations: 535 F. App'x 557
Docket Number: No. 12-71192
Parties: Juan Carlos BARRAZA-SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Juan Carlos Barraza, a.k.a. Juan Carlos Sanchez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 535
Pages: 557–558

Head Matter:
Juan Carlos BARRAZA-SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Juan Carlos Barraza, a.k.a. Juan Carlos Sanchez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-71192.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2013.
Filed July 31, 2013.
Zulu Ali, Zulu Abdullah Ali, Riverside, CA, for Petitioner.
Laura M.L. Maroldy, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, 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
Juan Carlos Barraza-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's removal order and denying his motion to remand based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to remand. Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Barraza-Sanchez's motion to remand where Barraza-Sanchez failed to comply with the threshold requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988), and 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.