Case Name: Bertha SOTO-DE TAPIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-07
Citations: 395 F. App'x 335
Docket Number: No. 09-71429
Parties: Bertha SOTO-DE TAPIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 395
Pages: 335–336

Head Matter:
Bertha SOTO-DE TAPIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71429.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 23, 2010.
Filed Sept. 7, 2010.
Angelica Navarro Sígala, Esquire, Law Offices of John R. Alcorn, Irvine, CA, for Petitioner.
Aviva Poczter, Senior Litigation Counsel, Emily Anne Radford, 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: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, 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
Bertha Soto-De Tapia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to remand based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Soto-De Tapia's contention that her statements taken at the border violated 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(c) because she failed to exhaust this issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Soto-De Tapia's motion to remand due to ineffective assistance of counsel because she failed to adequately comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (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, 597-99 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.