Case Name: Vicente Avila VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-15
Citations: 114 F. App'x 961
Docket Number: No. 03-73896; Agency No. A70-944-588
Parties: Vicente Avila VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 961–962

Head Matter:
Vicente Avila VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-73896.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
Decided Dec. 15, 2004.
Michael S. Cabrera, Law Offices of Michael S. Cabrera, Huntington Park, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Vicente Avila Valdez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
Valdez concedes that his second motion to reopen exceeded both the numerical and time limitations set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). He contends that these limitations should be equitably tolled because his failure to file a single, timely motion to reopen was based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Because Valdez did not raise the issue of equitable tolling before the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1183 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc).
Moreover, we reject Valdez's contention that he was not required to exhaust his ineffective assistance of counsel and due process claims. Because the record does not show "a clear and obvious case of ineffective assistance," Valdez was required to raise these claims before the BIA and comply with the procedure established in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1226-27 (9th Cir.2002) (citing Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518, 526 (9th Cir.2000)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.