Case Name: Reina Benites 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: 2012-05-23
Citations: 473 F. App'x 676
Docket Number: Nos. 10-73430
Parties: Reina Benites ARMENTA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 676–677

Head Matter:
Reina Benites ARMENTA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 10-73430.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2012.
Filed May 23, 2012.
Berc Agopoglu, Esquire, Law Offices of Berc & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Colin J. Tucker, Trial, DOJ-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: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, 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
Reina Benites Armenia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen due to 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 reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Armenia's motion to reopen, where Armenta 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 she 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.