Case Name: Shah NAZRUL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-05-07
Citations: 378 F. App'x 688
Docket Number: No. 06-75197
Parties: Shah NAZRUL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and LEFKOW, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 378
Pages: 688–689

Head Matter:
Shah NAZRUL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75197.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 4, 2010.
Filed May 7, 2010.
Law Offices of Carlos A. Cruz, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anh-Thu P. Mai, Esq., Peter H. Matson, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and LEFKOW, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Joan H. Lefkow, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Shah Nazrul, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reissue the BIA's prior order due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Nazrul's motion to reopen for failure to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988), where Nazrul failed to file a state bar complaint or include evidence that he informed his attorney of the allegations against him, and the ineffective assistance is not plain on the face of the record. See Reyes, 358 F.3d at 597-99.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.