Case Name: Maria Adriana MICHEL, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-28
Citations: 249 F. App'x 573
Docket Number: No. 05-72253
Parties: Maria Adriana MICHEL, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 249
Pages: 573–573

Head Matter:
Maria Adriana MICHEL, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72253.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2007.
Filed Sept. 28, 2007.
Nadeem H. Makada, Esq., Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James A. Hunolt, Esq., Michelle E. Gor-den, Esq., Eric W. Marsteller, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Maria Adriana Michel, 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. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to remand for abuse of discretion. Castillo-Perez v. I.N.S., 212 F.3d 518, 523 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the affidavit Michel submitted with her motion to remand failed to satisfy the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1023 (9th Cir.2004) (recognizing that the affidavit must "[set] forth in detail the agreement that was entered into"). Contrary to Michel's contention, the ineffective assistance was not plain on the face of the record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597-98 (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.