Case Name: YU LE WANG and Liang Chen, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-04
Citations: 430 F. App'x 636
Docket Number: No. 07-72018
Parties: YU LE WANG and Liang Chen, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 430
Pages: 636–636

Head Matter:
YU LE WANG and Liang Chen, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72018.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 2, 2011.
Filed May 4, 2011.
Dehai Zhang, Law Offices of Dehai Zhang, Flushing, NY, for Petitioners.
Nancy Canter, Trial, Corey Leigh Farrell, 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: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, 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
Petitioners Yu Le Wang and Liang Chen, natives and citizens of China, seek review of the BIA's decision dismissing their appeal of the IJ's denial of then-motion to reopen their removal proceedings. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen. Lo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 934, 937 (9th Cir.2003). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition.
I. Lack of Notice
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to reopen the proceedings on the basis of lack of notice. The notice sent to the most recent address provided by petitioner was sufficient to satisfy the notice requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(2)(A). See Popa v. Holder, 571 F.3d 890, 897-98 (9th Cir.2009).
II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it held that petitioners failed to make a case for reopening their proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioners did not demonstrate that they were prejudiced by counsel's actions. They did not comply with the requirements in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), or demonstrate "clear and obvious" ineffectiveness that would justify an exception from those requirements. See Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518, 525-26 (9th Cir.2000); see also ho, 341 F.3d at 937. Because petitioners failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, tolling of the deadline for filing a motion to reopen was not warranted. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897-98 (9th Cir.2003).
The petition for review is DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.