Case Name: Daniel Maingi KINGOO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-19
Citations: 472 F. App'x 675
Docket Number: No. 09-71203
Parties: Daniel Maingi KINGOO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 675–676

Head Matter:
Daniel Maingi KINGOO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71203.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 2012.
Filed April 19, 2012.
Daniel Maingi Kingoo, pro se.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kristina Rencic Sraeic, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, 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
Daniel Maingi Kingoo, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying his motion to reopen proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's decision, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Kingoo's motion to reopen because Kingoo did not comply with the threshold requirements of Matter of Lazada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), at the time he filed his motion with the IJ, and the alleged ineffective assistance was not "plain on the face of the administrative record." Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518, 525 (9th Cir.2000).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Kingoo's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.